END OF SCIENCE ARGUMENT

One must concede in arguing against science , in the sense if one uses 'logical' arguments, one is applying science.
to be really anti-science one would have to use illogical arguments
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Well, maybe you don't want to debate this anymore, but I think this is
quite wrong. Logic is far, far more fundamental than any science; it's
taught in the philosophy department of the universities I know of. No
one tests theories about logic by running experiments in the laboratory
and observing the results; hence, logic is not science.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> One must concede in arguing against science , in the sense if one
uses
> 'logical' arguments, one is applying science.
> to be really anti-science one would have to use illogical arguments
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>

i knew you weren't going to let me off the hook!!!
so logic is considered a part of philosophy,
so is science possible that is not logical?
should i assume yes if it is repeatable?
Paul Erlich wrote:

>Well, maybe you don't want to debate this anymore, but I think this is >quite wrong. Logic is far, far more fundamental than any science; it's >taught in the philosophy department of the universities I know of. No >one tests theories about logic by running experiments in the laboratory >and observing the results; hence, logic is not science.
>
>
>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
>>One must concede in arguing against science , in the sense if one >> >>
>uses > >
>>'logical' arguments, one is applying science.
>> to be really anti-science one would have to use illogical arguments
>>-- >>Kraig Grady
>>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>>The Wandering Medicine Show
>>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>>
>> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> One must concede in arguing against science , in the sense if one
> uses 'logical' arguments, one is applying science.
> to be really anti-science one would have to use illogical arguments

That was Aristotle's attempt to convince us to use logic.

-Carl

wel like harry, i am a greek revivalist in disguise.
Although i prefer diogenes

Carl Lumma wrote:

>>One must concede in arguing against science , in the sense if one
>>uses 'logical' arguments, one is applying science.
>> to be really anti-science one would have to use illogical arguments
>> >>
>
>That was Aristotle's attempt to convince us to use logic.
>
>-Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
> i knew you weren't going to let me off the hook!!!
> so logic is considered a part of philosophy,
> so is science possible that is not logical?

Well, there are some philosophers like Hilary Putnam who try to
explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics by trying to invoke some
kind of "quantum logic" rather than standard logic and saying that
that's what applies to these entities.

To Putnam, logic is an empirical question, its structure is to be
determined by observing the world.

"This proposal, however, is widely regarded as mistaken."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/

Most scientists *and* philosophers in the field are dissatisfied with
this approach, claiming that it merely disguises our ignorance as to
the real mysteries of quantum mechanics. On this view, logic is
essentially a set of tautologies that are true by definition, like
mathematics but even more fundamental, and science can have nothing
to say about logic per se. Denying a purely logical proposition, or
accepting an alternate form of logic, would therefore imply a
contradiction, which would allow you to prove any premise whatsoever.
So deviating from classical logic would make science, or any
deduction at all, impossible. This is my view.

Yet there's nothing in logic itself that says science should be
possible. The world has to "help us out" with some
repeatability/regularity.

> Well, maybe you don't want to debate this anymore, but I think
> this is quite wrong. Logic is far, far more fundamental than
> any science; it's taught in the philosophy department of the
> universities I know of. No one tests theories about logic by
> running experiments in the laboratory and observing the results;
> hence, logic is not science.

The logic class I took at IU was out of the Philosophy
dept (Barwise). My friend had one in the math dept., and it
sounds like Gene would agree they exist.

It looks like I favor a more inclusive definition of science
than you, Paul. As long as there's continual generation of
hypotheses, discarding of ones that don't match observation,
and application of Occam's razor, I call it science.
Observations in my view include things like proofs in math,
and I consider pure math a science. I see 'experiments'
as special cases of observation... they employ many
indispensible tools, but none of them are ultimately
fundamental to science.

I think this fits well with the way real science is done.
There is seldom all of the distinct textbook ingredients,
and they are seldom in textbook order. In the neuroscience
talk I attended today (describing the first in vivo
observation of spike timing dependent plasticity via open
cell recordings), my friend who was giving the talk admitted
that his experiment was done before any hypothesis was made.
When questioned, he said all such work is done under a
'we'll see something cool and tell a story around it'
paradigm.

Post- Standard Mmodel physics is an example of very active
field where measurements of what might be called physical
reality are sparse. It's also one of the fields showing
the existence of 'physical reality' apart from information
is questionable.

-Carl