3 ms·

It definitely is the case. Science involves statistics, statistics is built on top of of the theory of probability, probability is built on top of logic. Ther

It definitely is the case. Science involves statistics, statistics is built on top of of the theory of probability, probability is built on top of logic. Therefore, for science to utilize statistics, it must assume probability and logic is true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism Examine the quotation in the first section: "Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. " The key word here is "solely" meaning that empiricism involves the addition of observational evidence on top of other forms of analysis. Additionally take this sentence: "Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification" Note that falsification used here cannot exist without assuming logic is true.

andrewjl 6y ago
> it must assume probability and logic is true. True in what sense? I appreciate the rigor you're trying to bring to this discussion. Most of the points regarding logic you raise here and in your other replies on the thread have been comprehensively debunked in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. One omission is the nature of human senses and perceptions. The understanding of which eliminates whatsoever any possibility of conclusively distinguishing the statement "logic is true" from "logic appears true to us but it's actual truth status is unknowable". This is just a toy explanation and the Critique is far more comprehensive and rigorous. > empiricism involves the addition of observational evidence on top of other forms of analysis. That may be the case in circumstances where it's convenient and other forms of analysis serve the function of useful tools or mental aids. However empirical observation always trumps other forms of analysis when they're in conflict. Otherwise we're no longer discussing science anymore.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  >"logic is true" from "logic appears true to us but it's actual truth status is unknowable". That's just a paradox. No point in going to deep into the paradox as it's unresolvable. At best it can be "Assumed" that logic is true. Replace "assume" with "pretend" it's the same thing. Science pretends logic is true. Whether it's actually true or not is the paradox. >That may be the case in circumstances where it's convenient and other forms of analysis serve the function of useful tools or mental aids. However empirical observation always trumps other forms of analysis when they're in conflict. Otherwise we're no longer discussing science anymore. Sure but this can only be done in conjunction with logic. If you observe evidence and the evidence leads to a conclusion the "leading to a conclusion" is done through logic. Another way to put it is, if logic wasn't real no observation would make sense. If I observed a pig, then pigs exist by logic. If logic wasn't real then the observation doesn't imply pigs exist. By logical analysis, An observation is therefore useless without logic. Suffice to say at this level of analysis we can clearly conclude that Science "pretends" logic and probability are true. Getting deeper into this dives into paradoxes which are ultimately uninteresting dead ends to me because it's unresolvable.
  - andrewjl 6y ago
    > At best it can be "Assumed" that logic is true. What exactly gives you the right to do that? And why is your reason any better than a different one provided by someone else who wants to argue the opposite? > Replace "assume" with "pretend" it's the same thing. We've now turned science into dogma. At what point do we then need to become aware that we're pretending? Surely there comes a point where pretending costs us epistemic legitimacy. Where is that point? And what response do we offer to an interlocutor who insists the earth is flat and our logical deduction of it's spherical shape is "pretend"? > Sure but this can only be done in conjunction with logic. If you observe evidence and the evidence leads to a conclusion the "leading to a conclusion" is done through logic. > If I observed a pig, then pigs exist by logic. If logic wasn't real then the observation doesn't imply pigs exist. Both of these statements are nonsensical and are debunked in the Critique of Pure Reason. > Getting deeper into this dives into paradoxes which are ultimately uninteresting dead ends to me because it's unresolvable. I have a feeling we're dealing with a small bit of motivated reasoning with respect to interestingness here.

andrewjl 6y ago

> it must assume probability and logic is true. True in what sense? I appreciate the rigor you're trying to bring to this discussion. Most of the points regarding logic you raise here and in your other replies on the thread have been comprehensively debunked in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. One omission is the nature of human senses and perceptions. The understanding of which eliminates whatsoever any possibility of conclusively distinguishing the statement "logic is true" from "logic appears true to us but it's actual truth status is unknowable". This is just a toy explanation and the Critique is far more comprehensive and rigorous. > empiricism involves the addition of observational evidence on top of other forms of analysis. That may be the case in circumstances where it's convenient and other forms of analysis serve the function of useful tools or mental aids. However empirical observation always trumps other forms of analysis when they're in conflict. Otherwise we're no longer discussing science anymore.

Geminidog 6y ago
>"logic is true" from "logic appears true to us but it's actual truth status is unknowable". That's just a paradox. No point in going to deep into the paradox as it's unresolvable. At best it can be "Assumed" that logic is true. Replace "assume" with "pretend" it's the same thing. Science pretends logic is true. Whether it's actually true or not is the paradox. >That may be the case in circumstances where it's convenient and other forms of analysis serve the function of useful tools or mental aids. However empirical observation always trumps other forms of analysis when they're in conflict. Otherwise we're no longer discussing science anymore. Sure but this can only be done in conjunction with logic. If you observe evidence and the evidence leads to a conclusion the "leading to a conclusion" is done through logic. Another way to put it is, if logic wasn't real no observation would make sense. If I observed a pig, then pigs exist by logic. If logic wasn't real then the observation doesn't imply pigs exist. By logical analysis, An observation is therefore useless without logic. Suffice to say at this level of analysis we can clearly conclude that Science "pretends" logic and probability are true. Getting deeper into this dives into paradoxes which are ultimately uninteresting dead ends to me because it's unresolvable.
- andrewjl 6y ago
  > At best it can be "Assumed" that logic is true. What exactly gives you the right to do that? And why is your reason any better than a different one provided by someone else who wants to argue the opposite? > Replace "assume" with "pretend" it's the same thing. We've now turned science into dogma. At what point do we then need to become aware that we're pretending? Surely there comes a point where pretending costs us epistemic legitimacy. Where is that point? And what response do we offer to an interlocutor who insists the earth is flat and our logical deduction of it's spherical shape is "pretend"? > Sure but this can only be done in conjunction with logic. If you observe evidence and the evidence leads to a conclusion the "leading to a conclusion" is done through logic. > If I observed a pig, then pigs exist by logic. If logic wasn't real then the observation doesn't imply pigs exist. Both of these statements are nonsensical and are debunked in the Critique of Pure Reason. > Getting deeper into this dives into paradoxes which are ultimately uninteresting dead ends to me because it's unresolvable. I have a feeling we're dealing with a small bit of motivated reasoning with respect to interestingness here.