This page contains my posts about how and why logic works, as well as how logic relates to scientific issues.
- Don’t attack the straw men: Straw man fallacies and reductio ad absurdum fallacies
- Don’t mistake an assumption for a fact
- Dying the way that nature intended: Appeal to nature fallacies
- I used to be a science denier: My journey from pseudoscience to skepticism
- Occam’s razor is about assumptions, not simplicity
- Stop accusing me of ad hominem fallacies you stupid idiots
- The fallacy fallacy: Reject the argument not the conclusion
- The genetic fallacy: When is it okay to criticize a source?
- The importance of logical fallacies
- The nirvana fallacy: An imperfect solution is often better than no solution
- The Rules of Logic Part 1: Why Logic Always Works
- The Rules of Logic Part 2: Good vs. Bad Arguments
- The Rules of Logic Part 3: Logical Fallacies
- The Rules of Logic Part 4: The Laws of Noncontradiction and Transitive Properties
- The Rules of Logic Part 5: Occam’s Razor and the Burden of Proof
- The Rules of Logic Part 6: Appealing to Authority vs. Deferring to Experts
- The Rules of Logic Part 7: Using Consistent Reasoning to Compare Apples and Oranges
- Using Deductive and Inductive Logic in Science
- Vaccine injuries and confirmation biases
- What would it take to convince you that you were wrong?
- You’re probably wrong
By logic I guess you mean principles of reasoning applicable to science? The overriding principle of the scientific method is finding “evidence”. I say that because scientists spend a lot of time deciding what is evidence and setting up experiments to provide it. Yet you obviously prefer the word “logic”. The underlying logic of calculus certainly makes it a good analytic tool but is that science? Testing of hypotheses using applicable mathematics (quantitative analysis) is what most scientists would agree with, yet you talk about inductive logic? I like your support for science but don’t conflate it with philosophy. I think you need to read this: http://empirico.org/science.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that you have seriously misunderstood what I am saying. I am not in any way shape or form using “logic” instead of “evidence.” Rather, I am saying that logic is what we use analyze evidence and determine what the evidence means. I completely agree with the link that you posted, and it in no way shape or form conflicts with anything that I have written. For example, you state that we test hypotheses using mathematics, and I agree, but if you actually read my posts, you will find that mathematics are simply extensions of the laws of logic. For example, you would no doubt agree that if 2+5 = 7, and 7+3 = 10, then 2+5+3 must = 10. That is simply the logical law known as the law of transitive properties. Math only works because of the laws of logic.
LikeLiked by 1 person