Logic vs. science and the myth that science isn't philosophy

Definition Logic:
Noun
logic (countable and uncountable; plural logics)

  1. (uncountable) A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis (that is the foundation) of many principles including the scientific method.

Ironically, logic is the basis of science… so advances in logic, necessarily have enormous implications for science, since science itself rests upon logic.

Next is the fact that you can do logic and thinking without “science”, since science is really just a label for the collection of thoughts of human beings and the different philosophical systems of thinking brought together under one roof and stamped as “the scientific method”.

If we say science isn’t philosophy, we’re saying science isn’t logic. Since logic is the foundation of science, we must admit that the concept of “science” is really incoherent unless we can find, gather, and point out which distinct systems of logic and methods of thinking, truly belong it.

Science has as a subject matter that which can be, theoretically, at least, empirically verified. Philosophy suffers no such restriction.

That’s the model. In practise, the lines do get blurred.

But there are other differences, such that science relies upon “proofs” - which entail deductive resoning, while philosophy need not. Philosophy needn’t rely even upon induction - ask any metaphysician.

There was a time when science and philosophy were indistinguishable. That time has passed - but we can see the continuum still - the two fields have a common origin, but that the difference between them is that they have followed different trajectories.

That’s because in reality they are intimately connected, what we really mean is: Science is the good philosophical systems that make the world understandable and cohesive, and the others are virtual or imaginary, but ultimately may have some kind of relationship. I think about it in the way that our thoughts are constantly exploring and expanding, and the good ones get added to the “is good set” and the bad ones get added to the “is bad set” and the others fall into their own virtual or personal classifications.

But metaphysics is the basis of all science ultimately - i.e. the human mind. The thinker is the foundation of all science, no thinker, no science. the statements science discovers and describes about the world are ‘true’ but they are totally conditional (provisional) ‘proofs’. As we go through history of science we see stuff that was totally childish and irrational, our “science” today will look just as irrational to future children

The truth is they still are indistinguishable for some of the philosophical systems though, when it comes to the systems of philosophy science has incorporated under the umbrella "the scientific method.

It’d be an interesting project to see what systems of philosophy are incorporated into the method or if it’s based on “blind random search and test”.

so much for objectivity

-Imp

Agreed, at least in some sense. We have to face facts, thought and the logic built into our minds seems to be transcendental.

but only to our minds… it tells us nothing about what is actually “out there”…

-Imp

Not really, if we believe we’re able to comprehend the universe using our minds, and our tools and inventions, that means our minds and (later enhancements) are equipped with fundamentals that allows this to happen. Otherwise we should just give up science right now.

Remember we are just discovering and recombining, that’s all we ultimately do in this universe – Detect, decode, understand, repeat.

no, we are inventing fairy tales and believing them.

-Imp

Tell that to your computer which was built using that belief. When considering criticizing a system, consider it’s results. Your belief unfortunately has about as much results as my little finger, that is to say, none.

We may not be able to know everything, but that’s not an excuse not to keep trying, otherwise we should just pack it all in now, and go do what we wish before death.

half of science is based on theories that cannot be completely proven. Science is a branch of philosophy, not philosophy its self.

I thought Philosophy et al, was a branch of Science: as Science encompasses Chemistry, Physics, Biology etc? that’s what I remember from my school days, anyhows - all the sciences stem from Science itself… I had wanted to be a scientist, but re-thought my career choice: when I read an article about a group of English scientists that were shot dead in a desert, after working on a project in the Middle East somewhere.

Do correct me if I am mistaken :unamused:

Every concept on the planet is a theory - formulas and equations are man-made, and proving that they have numerous applications: does not make them any more concrete and real.

Ok I think we need to clarify as to the relationship between science and logic.

The scientific method works by us coming up with a theory we believe to be logical. Then we note that if the theory is true certain phenomena must occur. We then test for these phenomena by experiment. If experiment agrees with the theory then we know that the theory is correct within the limits that we tested it. But this does not verify the theory as correct in any true sense; just that it happens to agree with our theory. So then we can say that our logic seems to stand up ok, but again there could be a flaw in our logic and thus our theory that hasn’t been tested by our experiment.

So we can never say our logic is flawless just that it stands up to all current experimental evidence.

If experimental evidence disagrees with our theories and our logic we must rethink.

So I would say that the fundemental thing in science is experimental evidence or atleast evidence coupled with logic.

logic on its own doesn’t really tell us much. This is why we can say science is not the same as philosophy.

Defination of science:
For something to be science it must be falsifiable.

hence you can nerver prove a scientific theory only disprove it!!!

Whereas in philosophy(excluding natural philosophy) or metaphysics we cannot prove or disprove anything.

[/b]

Yeah, it is the experimentalist aspect of science that separates it from most other philosophies.

In philosophy it is: I think XYZ. I’ll back this up with other things that I think.

Science does the same thing, but adds a vital step where the predictions made by XYZ are tested.

since you can’t separate anything, of course everything is a little bit of everything.

A good analogy of Science, me thinks - I see Science like I see religion: a means of controlling the world around us: as opposed to religion controlling people - the more control one has over a wider range: the more power.

I use my logic to rationalise the things that I think/do: to ensure that what I am doing makes me gains/benefits me…

We can use science to tell us how to controll the world around us but that doesn’t mean it is science that controls things. Its human beings that do the controlling in both cases

You can’t control anything.

…If I stated that Science was just man-made concepts: then it is man who does the controlling - perhaps I took it for granted that you would know what I meant: I will start expanding my replies, to prohibit further misunderstandings :wink:

All your posts seem to be are…“this doesn’t exist” “you can’t do that” “everything is this”…but wheres the substance??? I don’t disagree with anything u say…maybe I i can’t contol anything; maybe I just think I can…but you have no reasons for what you say…you just say it…so worse than actually disagree with you I just find your points utterly meaningless…sorry but thats my stance…

Me personally, or man in general?