Is logic a science? - Democratic Underground

Poll result (13 votes)
No, logic is just random philosophical opinion. Science consists of historical records of actual observations or actually performed experiments. (3 votes, 23%) Vote
No, but the attempt to apply logic is often discouraged, penalized, or prohibited outside of subject areas labeled as "science." (3 votes, 23%) Vote
Yes, but logic was already fully understood in the days of Galileo. (0 votes, 0%) Vote
Yes, and there might be a sudden, major leap of progress in logic in the future. (0 votes, 0%) Vote
Answer could be "Yes" or "No", depending upon the precise definition of "science", which is a vague term. (0 votes, 0%) Vote
Don't know, or no opinion (0 votes, 0%) Vote
The question relies upon at least one assumption that is definitely false. (0 votes, 0%) Vote
The question is simply too complicated and disorganized as formulated. (0 votes, 0%) Vote
No, because logicians don't have any reason to wear white lab coats. (0 votes, 0%) Vote
None of the above. (7 votes, 54%) Vote

.. that could explain the complete lack of reason
in so many fringers.

cute logic smiley here

science is based in logic. A science grows and progresses as new knowledge becomes known by applying logic. The rules of logic are set and do not change.

It seems that the laws of nature don't change. However, theories of physics are revised.

How much do human beings know about these things that you refer to as "the rules of logic"?

and old theories are proven wrong. Galileo used logic to disprove geocentricism. The rules of logic did not change. Logic was used to change how we view the universe.

How much do we know about the rules of logic? In our particular space and time continuum, I think we know everything there is to know under our particular set of circumstances here.

And like any tool, it can be used, or misused, for multiple purposes.

Logic delivers an answer in the form of Yes, No or Maybe. If you try to give it more function you change it into something else. (Trying to get varying degrees of 'maybe' turns logic into statistics, for example.)

And it has little inherent power. However it may be applied to powerful questions, in which case it's answers may have powerful results. But the power stems from the question, not from the tool used to get an answer.

Finally, it must be kept in mind that there are some questions to which it cannot (or should not) be applied. 'Do I love donuts' is ok. 'How much do I love coffee' is not ok.

Originally called "natural philosophy". Logic is also a branch of philosophy, so it's a cousin to science.

Science started out as "natural philosophy." The word science didn't even exist in its current usage until the 18th Century.

If you want to argue that the history of it doesn't matter, fine. I'd probably agree with you. I was only offering some harmless context. If you're just in the mood for being ill mannered, you might find more compatriots in GD:P.

Pure, 100% unmitigated bullshit.

EDIT: Since you clearly know nothing about what you're talking about, here's the essence of the reason why what you said is pure, 100% unmitigated bullshit.

Q: If we agreed to call a "tail" a "leg", how many legs would a horse have?
A: 4. Because you can't change the number of legs horses have by changing the language.

Calling it a philosophy is a very old term. Calling it science is what changed the language.

I must find a way to use that line on somebody, sometime during the course of the day tomorrow.

with a systematic search for facts with a goal of increasing mankind's knowledge, while logic is a tool employed in that search, and is thought to have its origins in Aristotle's application of a single branch of philosophy that deals with "reasoning." And, you are correct about the origins of science from the field of "natural philosophy":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

There was always, however, a distinction made between the physical, and the metaphysical. The word "science" is derived from scientia in Latin, which means "knowledge."

Logic is generally defined as the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Philosophy is a much broader field, and is defined as the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Theoretical science arrives at its methods through the application of disciplined logic, and its morality through the teachings of philosophy. Applied science retains the use of logic, but has little need for philosophy.

Here's my take on it:

Science has a set of heuristics: observe data, go through abductive reasoning for formulate a hypothesis that, ideally, can make a prediction about further data; collect and observe more data, whether from what's predicted or not; compare the additional data to the hypothesis. Along the way you use logic to make sure the hypothesis is consistent, that nothing's left out and that nothing's unnecessarily put in. Logic is a constraint on arguments and a way of saying whether an argument is true or false, and a danged nifty tool for finding error.

But logic isn't a science, except in the etymological sense (it's certainly a kind of scientia). I can't imagine a set of observations that could cause me to reconsider some bit of logic, formulate a hypothesis to "correct" the logical system *as such*, and then test the revised system. If I were to revise it, it would fail to work as it has. It would be something different, not simply logic amended.

It's like mathematics. It's a set of axioms and operations. While I'm fairly sure I couldn't come up with alternative logics, I have a suspicion that we have the logic that we do because it is internally consistent and it works with science. I don't see why it needs to be the only possible set of axioms and operators, but that's not saying that I think there are alternative sets of axioms and operators that are internally consistent, much less find some application (as though that were important). It's the same with mathematics and geometry: For a long time the standard four arithmetic operators and the set of real numbers was sufficient for science, for dealing with reality. Not only was it adequate, it was necessary. It was only later that alternative mathematics and geometries started to be advanced, and a bit longer before they were found useful in areas where the formerly sole mathematics failed.

It may well be that alternative logics would fail to be internally consistent and are impossible. I'm a linguist by training, not a mathematician. I've had basic logic, I've had a semester of formal semantics, I've had a bit of math, but I'm still a linguist. That's not irrelevant info.

One problem I've run across is that formal semantics, based in traditional kinds of first order logic, fails to describe language at all adequately. Yeah, you can capture some nifty generalizations, but there are honking big ones that the logic not only doesn't capture, but hints are impossible. Yet every native speaker of pretty much every natural language performs those "logical" operations daily, and consistently. Moreover, there are operations logic says should be attested, but which no language known in the literature as of 1996 displayed. Second order semantics apparently also fails to handle at least tense and aspect adequately. I killed a couple of afternoons one term watching a visiting German logician explain to a group of semanticians why his approach using higher order logic to account for tense and aspect data was promising--the local guys argued that second order logic handled a lot of the data, but the logician squashed them with a litany of unresolved problems, then proceded to show how first and second order logic, in turn, each failed to account for the data and in some cases inevitably denied the data was possible. This is bad, even in linguistics, and even though we all say language has its own odd "logic" semanticists keep on trying. Since I failed to understand pretty much everything he said about second order logic, well, I didn't attend the lectures in which he developed his ideas.

At the end the German still hadn't cracked the problem--no surprise there--and the local guys were unconvinced he was even on the right track. It may be that we lacked the right semantic types for the operators to work on, and he simply failed to produce them. It might be that the set of operators was impoverished. It might be that traditional logic, devised to deal with the physical world, is a poor fit to human language, where we make all kinds of odd assumptions and connections that simply aren't quite "real". Dunno. I'm not a semanticist, BTW, and haven't seriously thought about semantics since, oh, 2003 (and that wasn't really formal stuff).

Rather than say that logic as a system is broken and needs to be fixed to account for notions of relevance and coherence in discourse pragmatics, not to mention tense and aspect--which is precisely the kind of thing I'd say in a chem lab if some "theory" suddenly failed to account for my data--it strikes me that perhaps it's like trying to apply real numbers to the problems in electrical engineering and fluid dynamics that formed some of the complex analysis problems I had to solve. Then again, what do I know?

Gotta do some work. Later.

Two distinct systems, however. Both systems have come to be valued for their consistency and utility.

because he always leaned back against the chalk rail when facing the class and his suits got covered in chalk dust. He had his doctorate from Princeton when he was 23, though, which kind of excuses it, maybe even explains it.

Scientific theories, hypotheses - could not be put forth without logic.

Is logic itself a science? We could imagine that it's a non-scientific prerequisite for science.

A completely different question: is the study of logic a science?

Perhaps one could make an analogy: language is to linguistics as logic is to ...?

Logic in humans should be required to take anyone seriously	stray cat	Oct-03-09 11:35 AM	#1
If logic is a science..	ananda	Oct-03-09 11:44 AM	#2
Logic is not a science but rather	Gman	Oct-03-09 11:45 AM	#3
"The rules of logic are set and do not change."	Boojatta	Oct-03-09 12:29 PM	#5
Theories of physics are revised as new knowledge is obtained	Gman	Oct-03-09 01:05 PM	#7
None of the above: Logic is a tool.	Ready4Change	Oct-03-09 11:56 AM	#4
Is it possible for the tool that is logic to be modified to have much more functionality or power?	Boojatta	Oct-03-09 12:43 PM	#6
No.	Ready4Change	Oct-03-09 02:10 PM	#9
Keep in mind that in its origin, science itself is only a branch of philosophy	Bucky	Oct-03-09 01:55 PM	#8
Pure bullshit.	BlooInBloo	Oct-03-09 05:36 PM	#10
You must have me confused with someone who pissed in your coffee	Bucky	Oct-03-09 07:00 PM	#11
"Keep in mind that in its origin, science itself is only a branch of philosophy"..	BlooInBloo	Oct-03-09 07:37 PM	#13
Is changing a leg to a tail a science?	Orrex	Oct-20-09 06:54 PM	#18
Are you completely unaware of the history of science?	Chemisse	Oct-20-09 08:01 PM	#19
I LOVE that expression!	Chemisse	Oct-20-09 08:03 PM	#20
Science deals	billh58	Oct-03-09 07:00 PM	#12
I voted "no".	Igel	Oct-03-09 09:33 PM	#14
In mathematics, there are lots of alternative logics.	bananas	Oct-05-09 10:46 AM	#15
Science and logic are both systems for the creation and maipulation of symbols	Viking12	Oct-05-09 02:29 PM	#16
Kick	Boojatta	Oct-20-09 05:14 PM	#17
My logic professor should have worn a white lab coat	DemBones DemBones	Oct-21-09 12:48 AM	#21
Kick	Boojatta	Nov-07-09 01:49 PM	#22
Logic is a component of science; without it science could not exist.	Avalux	Nov-07-09 07:59 PM	#23
Without language, could science exist?	Boojatta	Nov-10-09 01:47 PM	#24