3 ms·

It's unfortunate that this kind of logic isn't emphasized more in mathematics or science in a pure form. I'm pretty sure in high school I had one semester of t

by gacba 16y ago

It's unfortunate that this kind of logic isn't emphasized more in mathematics or science in a pure form. I'm pretty sure in high school I had one semester of this kind of logic associated with geometry. That was it until I hit discrete structures in college. Failure to understand this logic might be part of the reason there's so much magical thinking about things relating to pseudoscience (e.g. paranormal activity, UFOs, conspiracy theories, New Age anything). A stronger base in logic would help people understand exactly why these things are impossible, stupid, or plain crazy with simple deductive and inductive reasoning techniques taught in logic courses.

yters 16y ago
Newton devoted much of his time to alchemy and theology.
Jach 16y ago
I think a stronger base in real probability theory (as opposed to simply frequency analysis) would be more beneficial, especially if you follow Jaynes' route and treat it as an extension to logic. As a commenter noted above, "implication" is easy to grasp, except it's not, because logical implication is not necessarily causal or does not even have to make real-world sense, whereas one of the goals of Bayesian Probability Theory is that it should have a qualitative correspondence with common sense.
tommorris 16y ago
I'm not sure logic exclusively helps in stopping pseudoscientific and magical thinking. Really a more holistic approach is required: Logic: to see how to reason deductively. Epistemology and/or philosophy of science: to see why common meta-beliefs about knowledge and discovery are wrong. Direct exposure to either a scientific or logic-driven discipline of study or practice: doesn't matter too much if this is a history book or the demands of a compiler. You have to put the reasoning in practice. Developing a high-quality bullshit detector relies on much more than just an introduction to logic textbook. It is a bit like immunization: you have to encounter bad reasoning in a safe environment and build up your own defenses. (That's all IMHO of course.)

by gacba 16y ago

yters 16y ago

Newton devoted much of his time to alchemy and theology.

Jach 16y ago

I think a stronger base in real probability theory (as opposed to simply frequency analysis) would be more beneficial, especially if you follow Jaynes' route and treat it as an extension to logic. As a commenter noted above, "implication" is easy to grasp, except it's not, because logical implication is not necessarily causal or does not even have to make real-world sense, whereas one of the goals of Bayesian Probability Theory is that it should have a qualitative correspondence with common sense.

tommorris 16y ago

I'm not sure logic exclusively helps in stopping pseudoscientific and magical thinking. Really a more holistic approach is required: Logic: to see how to reason deductively. Epistemology and/or philosophy of science: to see why common meta-beliefs about knowledge and discovery are wrong. Direct exposure to either a scientific or logic-driven discipline of study or practice: doesn't matter too much if this is a history book or the demands of a compiler. You have to put the reasoning in practice. Developing a high-quality bullshit detector relies on much more than just an introduction to logic textbook. It is a bit like immunization: you have to encounter bad reasoning in a safe environment and build up your own defenses. (That's all IMHO of course.)