From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 02:30:53 MST
Mike Lorrey writes
> > Claim: formal logic played no part in the development of
> > Western science. (Einstein was mistaken.)
>
> No, you were mistaken. Logic originated with the Greek philosophers,
> though, as with any early development, there were errors made that took
> time to root out. Today we have entire taxonomies of logical errors
> that have taken time to identify and classify.
You don't seem to be distinguishing between "formal logic" and
"logic", which was the point of my entire post. Had Einstein
omitted the word "formal", I would be in utter agreement with
his quote.
> > Formal logic, on the other hand, arises when there is a
> > conscious awareness not only of the logic that is occurring,
> > but also of its formal aspect. On this reading, most people
> > (even the most intelligent) are unaware of formal logic and
> > never resort to it. Many highly intelligent people are even
> > able to solve rather abstract puzzles such as the following:
> >
> > State the logical conclusion:
> >
> > (1) No ducks waltz
> > (2) No officers ever decline to waltz
> > (3) All my poultry are ducks
This was supposed to be a puzzle whose logical
conclusion is not stated here. It is not a
syllogism as perhaps you thought I was claiming.
> > They solve it several methods, one of which is a rapid "trial
> > and error" of quickly generating and testing hypotheses,
> > which Popper and others have elevated to the key principle
> > behind evolutionary epistemology (and PCR). Another is
> > to employ a kind of visualization similar to the manipulation
> > of Venn-diagrams, to get a "feel" for what is the needed
> > conclusion. Yet others seize at random upon pairs of sentences
> > to extract---if possible---simple syllogisms of the sort "if A
> > implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C".
>
> Syllogisms are useful, but only if one takes into consideration all
> significant variables. You did not in the above example, which is why
> its conclusion is nonsensical. Therefore, your alleged disproof fails
> to demonstrate logic of its own.
"Its conclusion"? What are you talking about?
"My disproof"? What are you talking about? I gave the above
puzzle as an illustration; it's not possible to take is as
proving anything.
> > (The latter method shows that by taking (3), then applying
> > (1), and finally comparing that result with (2), the answer
> > rapidly obtains.)
Did you try to solve the puzzle? (It's from Lewis Carroll.)
> > Aristotle practically invented formal logic, at least in
> > my opinion, and yet long before Aristotle mathematicians
> > were solving geometry problems that required little more
> > than pure logic. And far before them, chiefs, shamans,
> > hunters, and family wranglers had also employed logic IMO,
> > just not formal logic.
I'll elaborate. We say that we are "being logical" when
our thinking is apparently free from simple errors, or
logical errors. There are many kinds of logical errors,
as Harvey Newstrom liked to point out, and which you
referred to. Here is a nice list:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
I agree that Western science is highly dependent on logical
thought. But as I said earlier, many people (and perhaps
animals) have been highly logical who never recognize the
formal aspects as first discovered by Aristotle.
> > Finally, then, a tiny bit of Western mathematics, but no
> > Western science should be said to be based upon formal
> > logic.
>
> On the contrary, since all real science is based on
> mathematics, your conclusion fails.
"Real science is based upon mathematics"? Where exactly
does that leave the greatest scientist of them all?
Also, besides him, one can mention Watson and Crick,
Pavlov, Faraday, and Aristotle himself, most of whose
scientific work didn't involve mathematics.
But look at my claim more carefully. Even so, I say
that only a *tiny* bit of Western mathematics is based
upon formal logic, virtually none of it before 1700,
except geometry.
Lee
P.S. The greatest scientist of all, in the opinion
of many of us, was Charles Darwin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST