3 ms·
The response (from Duhem, Quine and others) is this: Suppose you think A contradicts B. You would surely admit that, there is likely some other C that, if C wer
by logicchop 7y ago
The response (from Duhem, Quine and others) is this: Suppose you think A contradicts B. You would surely admit that, there is likely some other C that, if C were true, A wouldn't contradict B. But if that's the "logic" of science then it isn't straightforward deduction.
If you want an example, consider an ordinary empirical observation. Someone claims the ball is red; you look and you see green. Classic contradiction, right? Except if lighting conditions are wrong, or there is a pane of colored glass between you, or.. The point is that there are additional claims that, if they were true, would remove the "contradicts" relation between the two original claims. But ordinary logical relationships shouldn't work like that.
- whatshisface 7y agoThat's just the common mistake of incorrectly encoding one's beliefs in logic and then complaining logic doesn't work. If you think there might be a glass pane between you and a colored ball, your true belief is (No glass pane implies green ball), not (green ball). If you don't mind me getting on my soap box, it kind of seems like the recipe for coming up with a renowned counterargument to a technical tool goes like: - Find a technical device that you don't understand. - Misuse it because you don't understand it. - Notice that it isn't working. - Conclude that logic doesn't work, math doesn't work, science doesn't work, the bug is in the compiler, take your pick.
- logicchop 7y agoIt's not clear what you mean or are complaining about. Feel free to provide your own example. Just come up with two empirical claims (A and B) such that you think A contradicts B. It should then be relatively easy to come up with a C that, if C were true, A would no longer contradict B. It's obvious once you start laying things out carefully.
- whatshisface 7y agoHere's a specific example. Claim A: "If nothing is wrong with your experiment or analysis, you will observe that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all inertial reference frames up to experimental uncertainty." Claim B: "If nothing is wrong with your experiment or analysis, you will observe that the speed of light in a vacuum is different in every inertial reference frame up to experimental uncertainty." Every experimentalist realizes that their real result is "I didn't make a mistake -> the answer is X," not "the answer is X." That's the correct way to encode an experiment in logic, leaving aside the high sophistication of how "I didn't make a mistake" gets treated in practice.
- marcosdumay 7y agoThere's always something between you and the ball. The era of completely defined and easily observable experiments is long gone. Today we are always composing inherited theories.