From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Thu Feb 20 15:21:00 EST 1992
Article 3757 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: MUST Philosopy be a Waste of Time?
Message-ID: <416@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 14 Feb 92 20:41:39 GMT
References: <403@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb11.190201.20670@psych.toronto.edu> <409@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb13.195506.23701@psych.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 165

In article <1992Feb13.195506.23701@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
|In article <409@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|>I would consider those as being more in the way of mathematics than pure
|>philosophy.
|
|Huh?  Logic is not philosophy?!  Yow, stop the presses!!!!

Certainly, logic is a *tool* *used* by philosophy, it is not itself philosophy.
A tool is not the same as its use, a hammer is not carpentry.

|>Besides, I only 'believe' them when I am doing classical bimodal logic,
|>when I am reasoning using real-valued logic (also called fuzzy logic) they
|>are *not* true.
|
|And who developed formalizations of fuzzy logic?  Scientists?

Mathematicians and cognitive scientists trying to develop models for
certain situations that classical logic did not handle well.

The most any philosopher may have done is to provide some interpretation
of what it means.

|>Also, I find that classical logic has little *practical* value.  Most real
|>problems are in finding the correct axioms or premises, not in the deductions
|>from them.  Too many purely logical arguments are based on questionable axioms
|>for them to be treated as more than suggestions of one possible reality.
|
|Be careful.  Axioms and premises are not completely interchangable.
|And while it may be true that too many purely logical arguments are based
|on questionable "axioms", too many purely scientific arguments are based
|on questionable logic.

In the long run scientific arguments on not resolved by logic at all, but
rather by observation and testing.  Logic is *sometimes* useful in clarifying
the implications of some observation, but that is all.  (Then those deduced
implications become a 'theory' which is subject to resting to determine if it
indeed corresponds to reality - the deductions are *not* taken as final
per se).

My point about axioms and assumptions is that the only ones of any real value
are those based on observation, or which follow directly from some definition.
All others are immediately suspect.

I repeat logic is a *tool*, to be used when it is appropriate to do so,
and which is dangerous when abused.  Logic *by* *itself* is of no value.
And no matter what, the results of logical deduction *must* be subjected
to observational testing to validate the axioms and assumptions.

A purely logical argument is little more than a game.
By choosing different reasonable sounding axiom systems you can
prove almost anything.   This is *especially* true in philosophy
where the basic concepts are not (yet) susceptible to observational
validation.

|>Probably, since in actual practice neither really contribute much to how
|>science is actually done.
|
|What?!  Logical positivism had a *profound* impact on the way science
|was done in its heyday.  Just check any history of science... 

In its heyday, yes, but not so much now.

And even then the *best*, most productive scientists were the ones that
just got on with the job and didn't let little things like a philosophical
concept constrain thier research program.

|Nonsense.  Many shamanistic religions also have methods that "work" within
|the culture in which they exist.  It is only because we *philosophically*
|refuse to admit the entities that they posit as having reality that
|these systems are not labelled some form of "science".  We have alternative
|accounts as to the way the universe works.   

Bullpucky - they *cannot* produce repeatable, predictable results (except
to a limited degree in areas of *human* behavior, where belief itself produces
its own reality).

Where they can produce repeatable results scientists eventually come to
accept them.  To this day we use willow-bark extract to cure headaches,
but most of us don't know it - we call it aspirin.  Most biologists today
treat native people's identifications of animals and plants with a great
deal of respect, to the extent of being willing to use them as a first
aproximation for species determination.

In short, where there *are* repeatable results that work *all* the time,
they are accepted into science.  Science is how we got computers and
a cure for pneumonia.  Can shamanistic religions match that kind of track
record - no, not even close.

|>Or you might say that most scientists have a theory of truth rather like:
|>"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must
|>be a duck".  In short, if a model works, act like its true until it doesn't.
|
|Define "works" without using any implicit philosophical concepts.

If it produces practical results.  It it allows one to make plans and rely
on them working.  If it provides the capability to build something.

In short, if it can be *used* *reliably*.

|>|Does he wonder about his conceptual
|>|distinctions (like between matter and non-matter)?
|>
|>Why is this even relevant to science?  What matters is observables.
|
|*This* is a philosophical position!

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

|We're not talking about a *descriptive* account of science, but a *normative*
|account.  If scientists reason poorly, or illogically, then they are doing
|poor science.  Note that "reason" and "logic" are at least partially
|defined by philosophers.

I have noticed that most progress in science does not depend much on
logic (though perhaps other types of reasoning, like contingency analysis
or mental manipulation may often be inportant).

|>   Actually, a large part of the scientific method (repeatability,
|>independent verification and so on) is aimed at revealing this kind of error.
|
|You keep talking about "The Scientific Method."  Could you state what it
|is?

It is an approach to knowledge in which observation takes primacy over
any and all theory.  It involves converting each problem into a *testable*
form, devising a set of tests, performing them, and interpreting the results.

There are additional rules - the tests must be performable by any qualified
operator, they must produce repeatable results, and they must be described
along with the results.

Actually a great deal of the practice of science is in the area of converting
a question into a testable form.  This is where debates about definitions
and such like are important.  The other large area of debate centers on
interpretation of results - this usually leads to new tests being designed
to differentiate between the competing interpretations.

It is a very flexible 'method', since the only requirements are repeatability
and verifiability, almost any test can be used - lab experiments, field
observations, excavations and so on.

|>The bottom line is,I trust a scientific result because the scientific approach
|>has shown itself to be reliable in the past.
|
|You should read some Hume.

What about Hume do you have in mind here.  I have almost certainly read
some of his work while I was in college.  It was largely from reading the
endless debates amoung various famous philosophers that I conclused that
it was not a useful approach to knowledge (only to ideas).

|>I do not trust pure reason because it has so often lead to useless results.
|>It is too easily mislead by incorrect asumptions or isolated false data.
|>Science, because it is self-correcting, is not so gullible.
|
|Science without reason is witchcraft.

But reason is only a *tool* in science, *pure* reason is reason *alone*,
without any observations to back it up.

I do not object to reason, only to *pure* reason.  Only to using reason as
an end in itself.  Only to using reason by itself.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)


