Logic is illogical and science is unscientific

[Pooh]

Logic would supposedly take us to a consistent theory that can avoid contradictions altogether. However, in light that logic has been used as a mode of thinking for thousands of years, but scientists are still searching for a Grand Unified Theory, it is a responsible conclusion that logic inference consistently ends up with contradiction with no exception so far. Since, on the one hand, logic aims to avoid contradiction, and on the other hand, reality says that logic, on the contrary, always leads to contradiction, logic does not make sense and therefore is illogical.   

Science makes a name for itself by demonstrating its powerful capability of explaining various phenomena. In order to do so, any scientific conclusion must first conform to logic, so that it is comprehensible, and meanwhile can be verified by experiment, so that it is convincing enough. However, with the continuous scientific exploration, science finally sails into unchartered water that, on the one hand, conclusions like the Big Bang Theory and Superstring Theory, although logically sound, cannot be verified by experiment, and on the other hand, phenomena like wave-particle duality and Quantum entanglement, although having been verified by experiments, are illogical. Since science starts to defy its own principles, science is not scientific anymore.  

What happens to the two? In order to analyze the situation, we need a tool to do reasoning, of which logic usually plays the role. However, since logic is the object of our examination in this case, we cannot use logic to examine itself. We must introduce another tool that is more fundamental than logic to check the status of logic. It is just like, in order to calibrate a tape, we must use the master tape to do so. Unfortunately, logic is already the "master tape" we have. We do not have a reasoning tool that is more fundamental than logic at the moment.  

Not a problem. Let's create one together. Try to observe logic and science as generic phenomena and what is the common conclusion that we can draw from them?  

For logic, the ability to avoid contradiction is its defining feature. However, although logic aims to avoid contradictions, it constantly ends up with contradiction. For science, logic and experiment are the two defining features. However, logically sound theory cannot be verified by experiment and phenomena proved by experiment are illogical. From these observations, I guess one common conclusion we can make is that they are both failing themselves in the unique way they are defined, so let's introduce this hypothesis that "the ten thousand things are all neutralizing themselves". Let's give it a name for easy addressing and call it Dao.  

Before using Dao as a tool, we must test its efficacy. Even if we can use Dao to explain the phenomena of logic and science, if we cannot use Dao as a tool to explain the phenomenon of Dao, then it is apparent that there must be a rule that is more underlying than Dao and therefore Dao is no better than logic and science. To prevail, Dao must avoid the trap that science falls into.   

This is the trap that makes science tumble: in order to explain a phenomenon of A, we introduce a phenomenon of B, while when people ask why B is such, we have to introduce a phenomenon of C to explain B. Unfortunately, people will further ask why C is such, then we have to introduce a phenomenon of D to explain C. This chain of question and answer can go on endlessly, and science will finally reach a point that it runs out of answer. This is the dilemma that science is now facing. For example, if you ask what happens before the Big Bang, science is not supposedly going to offer an answer anymore. Science has never touched the essence of this world. It only repetitively uses one phenomenon to explain another phenomenon. Even if the Standard Model of particle physics were complete, it still cannot be used to explain why the Standard Model is such. Therefore, only when we are able to find a phenomenon that can explain itself can we bring this chain of question and answer to the end. Only a self-consistent and self-explanatory theory is trustworthy and can live up to the title of the Truth.  

Then, can we use Dao to explain the phenomenon of Dao? Since Dao asserts that the ten thousand things are all neutralizing themselves, does Dao, or the statement that "the ten thousand things are all neutralizing themselves", need to neutralize itself? If we choose no, then there is, at least, one thing, i.e. this statement, that will not neutralize itself, therefore "the ten thousand things are all neutralizing themselves" is neutralized by itself. In order not to be neutralized, it must accept that it needs to be neutralized, otherwise, it will be neutralized. You see: Dao is a paradox. No matter which way you choose, it will always lead you to a contradiction. However, Dao has already predicted that either option will neutralize itself because Dao states that "the ten thousand things are all neutralizing themselves". From this, we know that Dao is a paradox with self-consciousness. Dao is a paradox that is aware that it is a paradox.  

Dao reaches logical self-consistency! It has the ability to calibrate itself. It has proved its own innocence. It has successfully explained why it is such with its own rule.   

Then, the question is, if we can use Dao to explain more phenomena? Absolutely! Let's go Quantum Mechanics, for which there is no logical explanation so far.  

The reason that quantum phenomena are so bewildering is that all quantum phenomena are, in nature, paradox, no matter it is wave-particle duality, uncertainty principle or quantum entanglement. Therefore, as long as we are able to find a theory that can rationalize paradox, then we find an uniform explanation to all quantum phenomena while, from the previous analysis, we know that Dao is a paradox and we can use the rule of Dao to explain why Dao falls into paradox. Therefore, Dao is the uniform explanation to all quantum phenomena.

All in all, a contradiction emerges as a result of logic neutralizing itself, or put it in another way, logic is the source of contradiction.

In order to better understand how logic causes contradiction, let's restore Dao to its original form: Yin is the precondition of Yang while Yang is the precondition of Yin; the effect of Yin is to neutralize Yang while the effect of Yang is to neutralize Yin.   

This might be difficult to understand. Let's analogize it to what scientists are much familiar with: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Without an action, there will not be a reaction at all while, without a reaction, you cannot confirm that there is an action either. Action and reaction are each other's precondition. Since action and reaction are equal but opposite, they can neutralize each other. Therefore, action and reaction form the classic relationship of Yin and Yang.  

Imagine that logic is a form of action and contradiction is its reaction. An action will always have a corresponding reaction. When this reaction is detected, scientists try to apply a greater action to overcome the reaction. Unfortunately, a greater action will only incur a greater reaction, although, at the first glance, the greater action might have successfully suppressed the old reaction. However, it is just a matter of time that the greater reaction will be noticed. This process can go on endlessly until scientists are exhausted by their own actions. This is the reason why, when the logic that scientists employ becomes increasingly sophisticated, contradictions in science also become more and more acute. Therefore, logic is defeating itself. It is the same mechanism that science is defeating itself. When more and more phenomena are explained by science, an increasing number of inexplicable phenomena arise as a consequence, and it is the same mechanism that the ten thousand things are each defeating themselves. The ten thousand things will all inevitably wind up as a paradox, no matter which course they take, because Dao is where they come from and therefore finally report to.  Dao is the origin of the universe and the ultimate Truth.

Since Dao has already reached self-consistency, therefore, in order to guarantee that a proposition is true, the only thing we need to do is to make sure that it conforms to Dao. For a statement that reflects the rule of Dao, it only takes two steps to validate it. First, I can use Dao to back the statement. When you ask me how I can prove that Dao is true, I can use Dao to do that and, after that, there will be no further questions that can be asked anymore. This is the beauty of a self-consistent theory. As such, I can make the below statement with a peace of mind and do not need to worry about that it might be overturned some day in the future that:   

Logic is illogical and science is unscientific!

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Pooh said:

Logic would supposedly take us to a consistent theory that can avoid contradictions altogether. However, in light that logic has been used as a mode of thinking for thousands of years, but scientists are still searching for a Grand Unified Theory, it is a responsible conclusion that logic inference consistently ends up with contradiction with no exception so far. Since, on the one hand, logic aims to avoid contradiction, and on the other hand, reality says that logic, on the contrary, always leads to contradiction, logic does not make sense and therefore is illogical.   

Science makes a name for itself by demonstrating its powerful capability of explaining various phenomena. In order to do so, any scientific conclusion must first conform to logic, so that it is comprehensible, and meanwhile can be verified by experiment, so that it is convincing enough. However, with the continuous scientific exploration, science finally sails into unchartered water that, on the one hand, conclusions like the Big Bang Theory and Superstring Theory, although logically sound, cannot be verified by experiment, and on the other hand, phenomena like wave-particle duality and Quantum entanglement, although having been verified by experiments, are illogical. Since science starts to defy its own principles, science is not scientific anymore.  

What happens to the two? In order to analyze the situation, we need a tool to do reasoning, of which logic usually plays the role. However, since logic is the object of our examination in this case, we cannot use logic to examine itself. We must introduce another tool that is more fundamental than logic to check the status of logic. It is just like, in order to calibrate a tape, we must use the master tape to do so. Unfortunately, logic is already the "master tape" we have. We do not have a reasoning tool that is more fundamental than logic at the moment.  

Not a problem. Let's create one together. Try to observe logic and science as generic phenomena and what is the common conclusion that we can draw from them?  

For logic, the ability to avoid contradiction is its defining feature. However, although logic aims to avoid contradictions, it constantly ends up with contradiction. For science, logic and experiment are the two defining features. However, logically sound theory cannot be verified by experiment and phenomena proved by experiment are illogical. From these observations, I guess one common conclusion we can make is that they are both failing themselves in the unique way they are defined, so let's introduce this hypothesis that "the ten thousand things are all neutralizing themselves". Let's give it a name for easy addressing and call it Dao.  

Before using Dao as a tool, we must test its efficacy. Even if we can use Dao to explain the phenomena of logic and science, if we cannot use Dao as a tool to explain the phenomenon of Dao, then it is apparent that there must be a rule that is more underlying than Dao and therefore Dao is no better than logic and science. To prevail, Dao must avoid the trap that science falls into.   

This is the trap that makes science tumble: in order to explain a phenomenon of A, we introduce a phenomenon of B, while when people ask why B is such, we have to introduce a phenomenon of C to explain B. Unfortunately, people will further ask why C is such, then we have to introduce a phenomenon of D to explain C. This chain of question and answer can go on endlessly, and science will finally reach a point that it runs out of answer. This is the dilemma that science is now facing. For example, if you ask what happens before the Big Bang, science is not supposedly going to offer an answer anymore. Science has never touched the essence of this world. It only repetitively uses one phenomenon to explain another phenomenon. Even if the Standard Model of particle physics were complete, it still cannot be used to explain why the Standard Model is such. Therefore, only when we are able to find a phenomenon that can explain itself can we bring this chain of question and answer to the end. Only a self-consistent and self-explanatory theory is trustworthy and can live up to the title of the Truth.  

Then, can we use Dao to explain the phenomenon of Dao? Since Dao asserts that the ten thousand things are all neutralizing themselves, does Dao, or the statement that "the ten thousand things are all neutralizing themselves", need to neutralize itself? If we choose no, then there is, at least, one thing, i.e. this statement, that will not neutralize itself, therefore "the ten thousand things are all neutralizing themselves" is neutralized by itself. In order not to be neutralized, it must accept that it needs to be neutralized, otherwise, it will be neutralized. You see: Dao is a paradox. No matter which way you choose, it will always lead you to a contradiction. However, Dao has already predicted that either option will neutralize itself because Dao states that "the ten thousand things are all neutralizing themselves". From this, we know that Dao is a paradox with self-consciousness. Dao is a paradox that is aware that it is a paradox.  

Dao reaches logical self-consistency! It has the ability to calibrate itself. It has proved its own innocence. It has successfully explained why it is such with its own rule.   

Then, the question is, if we can use Dao to explain more phenomena? Absolutely! Let's go Quantum Mechanics, for which there is no logical explanation so far.  

The reason that quantum phenomena are so bewildering is that all quantum phenomena are, in nature, paradox, no matter it is wave-particle duality, uncertainty principle or quantum entanglement. Therefore, as long as we are able to find a theory that can rationalize paradox, then we find an uniform explanation to all quantum phenomena while, from the previous analysis, we know that Dao is a paradox and we can use the rule of Dao to explain why Dao falls into paradox. Therefore, Dao is the uniform explanation to all quantum phenomena.

All in all, a contradiction emerges as a result of logic neutralizing itself, or put it in another way, logic is the source of contradiction.

In order to better understand how logic causes contradiction, let's restore Dao to its original form: Yin is the precondition of Yang while Yang is the precondition of Yin; the effect of Yin is to neutralize Yang while the effect of Yang is to neutralize Yin.   

This might be difficult to understand. Let's analogize it to what scientists are much familiar with: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Without an action, there will not be a reaction at all while, without a reaction, you cannot confirm that there is an action either. Action and reaction are each other's precondition. Since action and reaction are equal but opposite, they can neutralize each other. Therefore, action and reaction form the classic relationship of Yin and Yang.  

Imagine that logic is a form of action and contradiction is its reaction. An action will always have a corresponding reaction. When this reaction is detected, scientists try to apply a greater action to overcome the reaction. Unfortunately, a greater action will only incur a greater reaction, although, at the first glance, the greater action might have successfully suppressed the old reaction. However, it is just a matter of time that the greater reaction will be noticed. This process can go on endlessly until scientists are exhausted by their own actions. This is the reason why, when the logic that scientists employ becomes increasingly sophisticated, contradictions in science also become more and more acute. Therefore, logic is defeating itself. It is the same mechanism that science is defeating itself. When more and more phenomena are explained by science, an increasing number of inexplicable phenomena arise as a consequence, and it is the same mechanism that the ten thousand things are each defeating themselves. The ten thousand things will all inevitably wind up as a paradox, no matter which course they take, because Dao is where they come from and therefore finally report to.  Dao is the origin of the universe and the ultimate Truth.

Since Dao has already reached self-consistency, therefore, in order to guarantee that a proposition is true, the only thing we need to do is to make sure that it conforms to Dao. For a statement that reflects the rule of Dao, it only takes two steps to validate it. First, I can use Dao to back the statement. When you ask me how I can prove that Dao is true, I can use Dao to do that and, after that, there will be no further questions that can be asked anymore. This is the beauty of a self-consistent theory. As such, I can make the below statement with a peace of mind and do not need to worry about that it might be overturned some day in the future that:   

Logic is illogical and science is unscientific!

Your blunder is to ignore the role of observation in science.

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, Pooh said:

Logic would supposedly take us to a consistent theory that can avoid contradictions altogether. However, in light that logic has been used as a mode of thinking for thousands of years, but scientists are still searching for a Grand Unified Theory, it is a responsible conclusion that logic inference consistently ends up with contradiction with no exception so far. Since, on the one hand, logic aims to avoid contradiction, and on the other hand, reality says that logic, on the contrary, always leads to contradiction, logic does not make sense and therefore is illogical.  

Logic takes us to the most likely explanation from the available information; when it meets a paradox, it doesn't mean the paradox is real, it means the information is unavailable. Therefore logically, to draw the conclusion that logic is therefore illogical, is illogical...

Couldn't be bothered to read the rest.

 

[joigus]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Logic takes us to the most likely explanation from the available information; when it meets a paradox, it doesn't mean the paradox is real, it means the information is unavailable. Therefore logically, to draw the conclusion that logic is therefore illogical, is illogical...

Couldn't be bothered to read the rest.

 

Glad to see you gave speaking in riddles a rest.  👍 +1

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Glad to see you gave speaking in riddles a rest.  👍 +1

LOL, it has it's place...

[cladking]

9 hours ago, Pooh said:

Logic is illogical and science is unscientific!

We must use science to untangle the illogic of language. Experiment provides glimpses of reality which we extrapolate. When we remember we also interpolate these glimpses. 

Logic is logic and science is  science and they are both a part of reality.  

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Pooh said:

Logic would supposedly take us to a consistent theory that can avoid contradictions altogether. However, in light that logic has been used as a mode of thinking for thousands of years, but scientists are still searching for a Grand Unified Theory, it is a responsible conclusion that logic inference consistently ends up with contradiction with no exception so far.

As exchemist has noted, you ignore the role of observation. Science must agree with experiment. Logic can only take one so far. "logical" ideas have been discarded because of disagreement with experiment - it was considered logical that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects, but this is not how nature behaves.

10 hours ago, Pooh said:

This is the trap that makes science tumble: in order to explain a phenomenon of A, we introduce a phenomenon of B, while when people ask why B is such, we have to introduce a phenomenon of C to explain B. Unfortunately, people will further ask why C is such, then we have to introduce a phenomenon of D to explain C.

Science does not explain why things are the way they are - that's a job for philosophy. The job of science is to describe how nature behaves. 

[TheVat]

Wait, didn't Lao-tzu say "the Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao" - ?

I wonder if Pooh spiked the honey jar.

[Pooh]

On 12/31/2023 at 1:47 AM, exchemist said:

Your blunder is to ignore the role of observation in science.

If logic constantly takes people to a right conclusion, then all observations should always speak to a logical conclusion. Is this the case? The answer is apparant.

The reason of that is that logic is not a reliable tool. It constantly misguides people. If someone misled you once, will you still trust him the next time? If you do so, you are doomed to be misguided a second time, a third time, a fourth time and so on.

The history of logic application has already shown that logic is not reliable. What blunder can it be to rely on someone who has once misled you.

The reason that logic is not reliable is because logic is not self-consistent. The foundation of logic is method of induction. Only when you are able to exhaust all samples can you reach a trustworthy conclusion, but who has the time and ability to exhaust all samples? Apparantly no one can, therefore, all logical conculsion is not trustworthy. 

When you emphasize "observation", you are literally admit that logic is not reliable because you do not have faith in a logic conclusion, otherwise observation plays no role here.

Dao is self-consistent, and therefore conclusion that conforms to Dao is not subject to the result of any "observation". It always speaks to the reality.

Dao asserts that logic is failing itself and I have already shown you how logic fails itself. No one can exhaust all samples! If you ask why logic demonstrates such strange behavior, it is because of Dao. Logic carries the gene of Dao. The defining feature of Dao is "reversal", as is quoted from Lao-tzu, or in other words, self-denial. Logic is rejecting itself is because it is a creation of Dao and therefore inherits the gene of Dao.

I can show you that not only logic carries the gene of Dao, even God also carries the gene of Dao. The defining feature of God is "almighty", so someone asked: Can God create a stone that he cannot move? If God says no, God is denying his defining feature. However, if God says yes, since the stone that he cannot move is also created by God himself, it it still God that is denying his own defining feature. Why does God demonstrate such stange behavior that it constantly neutralize itself? It is because God is a creation of Dao and therefore carries Dao's gene.

Use the rule of Dao to observe whatever things happen around your and you will find that Dao never fails. Except for logic and God, I give you another few examples. 

Why do all lives need to face death with no exception? It is because all lives are creations of Dao and therefore they need to neutralize themselves.

Where does the uncertainty  in quantum mechanics come from? It is the scientists' effort to seek certainty that is neutralizing itself and creates the uncertainty.

Why does democracy become increasingly problematic as it used to work quite well. It is because democracy is also a creation of Dao and therefore need to neutralize itself.

And you name it. 

As a reasoning tool, the most important thing is self-consistency. Self-consistency means the tool can, at least, justify its own behavior. If a tool cannot even justifies its own behavior, how can you expect that it can provide justification to other phenomena?

Sun-Tzu once said "the winning army secures victory first and then goes to the battlefield. The losing army goes to the battlefield first and strives to win." If I borrow his expression to describe reason tools, I will say "The impeccable tool reachs self-consistency first and then applies it self in the real world. The flawed tools applies itself in the real world first and then strives to reach self-consistency." 

On 12/31/2023 at 10:26 AM, swansont said:

As exchemist has noted, you ignore the role of observation. Science must agree with experiment. Logic can only take one so far. "logical" ideas have been discarded because of disagreement with experiment - it was considered logical that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects, but this is not how nature behaves.

Science does not explain why things are the way they are - that's a job for philosophy. The job of science is to describe how nature behaves. 

I guess, for someone who works in applied science, your opinion is true. As the name indicates, he focuses more on how to apply science. However, for people who work in fundemental science, if he says he feel not interested in finding out the most fundemental rule in the universe and give all phenomena an explanation, I guess he will be despised by his co-workers as he loses his quanlification to be a fundemental scientists, still as its name indicates.

Of course, this is only my personl opinion and I will leave your reply for other people to comment.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Pooh said:

If logic constantly takes people to a right conclusion, then all observations should always speak to a logical conclusion. Is this the case? The answer is apparant.

Much like this statement, logic can be proper but based on a false premise. The conclusion is valid, but also incorrect.

Quote

When you emphasize "observation", you are literally admit that logic is not reliable because you do not have faith in a logic conclusion, otherwise observation plays no role here.

Not at all. First of all, saying that observation must be included is not emphasizing it, and that makes no statement about logic’s reliability. It says that logic is a necessary but insufficient component in science. Saying observation plays no role just shows ignorance about science.

Quote

Dao is self-consistent, and therefore conclusion that conforms to Dao is not subject to the result of any "observation". It always speaks to the reality.

There are a number of self-consistent propositions that don’t speak to reality. Of course, one needs observation to be able to know this.

You’ve provided empirical evidence that your Dao is flawed.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Pooh said:

If logic constantly takes people to a right conclusion, then all observations should always speak to a logical conclusion. Is this the case? The answer is apparant.

The reason of that is that logic is not a reliable tool. It constantly misguides people. If someone misled you once, will you still trust him the next time? If you do so, you are doomed to be misguided a second time, a third time, a fourth time and so on.

The history of logic application has already shown that logic is not reliable. What blunder can it be to rely on someone who has once misled you.

The reason that logic is not reliable is because logic is not self-consistent. The foundation of logic is method of induction. Only when you are able to exhaust all samples can you reach a trustworthy conclusion, but who has the time and ability to exhaust all samples? Apparantly no one can, therefore, all logical conculsion is not trustworthy. 

When you emphasize "observation", you are literally admit that logic is not reliable because you do not have faith in a logic conclusion, otherwise observation plays no role here.

Dao is self-consistent, and therefore conclusion that conforms to Dao is not subject to the result of any "observation". It always speaks to the reality.

Dao asserts that logic is failing itself and I have already shown you how logic fails itself. No one can exhaust all samples! If you ask why logic demonstrates such strange behavior, it is because of Dao. Logic carries the gene of Dao. The defining feature of Dao is "reversal", as is quoted from Lao-tzu, or in other words, self-denial. Logic is rejecting itself is because it is a creation of Dao and therefore inherits the gene of Dao.

I can show you that not only logic carries the gene of Dao, even God also carries the gene of Dao. The defining feature of God is "almighty", so someone asked: Can God create a stone that he cannot move? If God says no, God is denying his defining feature. However, if God says yes, since the stone that he cannot move is also created by God himself, it it still God that is denying his own defining feature. Why does God demonstrate such stange behavior that it constantly neutralize itself? It is because God is a creation of Dao and therefore carries Dao's gene.

Use the rule of Dao to observe whatever things happen around your and you will find that Dao never fails. Except for logic and God, I give you another few examples. 

Why do all lives need to face death with no exception? It is because all lives are creations of Dao and therefore they need to neutralize themselves.

Where does the uncertainty  in quantum mechanics come from? It is the scientists' effort to seek certainty that is neutralizing itself and creates the uncertainty.

Why does democracy become increasingly problematic as it used to work quite well. It is because democracy is also a creation of Dao and therefore need to neutralize itself.

And you name it. 

As a reasoning tool, the most important thing is self-consistency. Self-consistency means the tool can, at least, justify its own behavior. If a tool cannot even justifies its own behavior, how can you expect that it can provide justification to other phenomena?

Sun-Tzu once said "the winning army secures victory first and then goes to the battlefield. The losing army goes to the battlefield first and strives to win." If I borrow his expression to describe reason tools, I will say "The impeccable tool reachs self-consistency first and then applies it self in the real world. The flawed tools applies itself in the real world first and then strives to reach self-consistency." 

I guess, for someone who works in applied science, your opinion is true. As the name indicates, he focuses more on how to apply science. However, for people who work in fundemental science, if he says he feel not interested in finding out the most fundemental rule in the universe and give all phenomena an explanation, I guess he will be despised by his co-workers as he loses his quanlification to be a fundemental scientists, still as its name indicates.

Of course, this is only my personl opinion and I will leave your reply for other people to comment.

You fail to understand what science does, it seems. It is not an abstract exercise in logic. It applies logic, sure, but it does so, crucially, to observations of nature. If those observations cannot all be reconciled by the application of existing theories, developed logically as they are,  that suggests  - logically - there must be missing observations that might  resolve the contradiction. That is quite a normal state of affairs in science, because it is an unfinished enterprise of discovery. It does not  follow there is a defect in logic, just that there is missing data for logic to be applied to.

Edited January 7 by exchemist

[Pooh]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

You fail to understand what science does, it seems. It is not an abstract exercise in logic. It applies logic, sure, but it does so, crucially, to observations of nature. If those observations cannot all be reconciled by the application of existing theories, developed logically as they are,  that suggests  - logically - there must be missing observations that might  resolve the contradiction. That is quite a normal state of affairs in science, because it is an unfinished enterprise of discovery. It does not  follow there is a defect in logic, just that there is missing data for logic to be applied to.

Let's put it this way. Do you admit that science aims to reveal truth? If you say no, then I don't think we need to continue the conversation anymore because we are talking about things at different level. Hens do not speak to ducks. They cannot communicate with each other.

If you say yes, let me know how you define truth. For me, self-consistency is the touch stone of truth. If a theory that cannot justify itself, it is far from truth. In searching of a self-consistent theory, you need a self-consistent tool. If a tool cannot even justify itself, do you think the justification it offers to a theory is trustworthy? Now the question is whether logic can justify logic itself, or the method of induction can provide justification to the method of induction. A conclusion from induction without exhausting all samples is trustworthy? With a flawed tool, what a chance it is to unveil truth.

I know it's hard to convince people with some alien ideas, but with this conversation, I think it will, at least, leave some impression in your mind and you can verify it in your real life to test it. After all, people only trust their own experience. 

[StringJunky]

42 minutes ago, Pooh said:

Let's put it this way. Do you admit that science aims to reveal truth? If you say no, then I don't think we need to continue the conversation anymore because we are talking about things at different level. Hens do not speak to ducks. They cannot communicate with each other.

If you say yes, let me know how you define truth. For me, self-consistency is the touch stone of truth. If a theory that cannot justify itself, it is far from truth. In searching of a self-consistent theory, you need a self-consistent tool. If a tool cannot even justify itself, do you think the justification it offers to a theory is trustworthy? Now the question is whether logic can justify logic itself, or the method of induction can provide justification to the method of induction. A conclusion from induction without exhausting all samples is trustworthy? With a flawed tool, what a chance it is to unveil truth.

I know it's hard to convince people with some alien ideas, but with this conversation, I think it will, at least, leave some impression in your mind and you can verify it in your real life to test it. After all, people only trust their own experience. 

Truth in science is what agrees with observations of the day and seems to reflect how nature behaves. I add the word 'seems' because what a theory says today may change in the light of new information tomorrow. There's no such thing as 'sitting on your laurels' in science. Truth is for religion and other non-scientific interests.

Edited January 7 by StringJunky

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Pooh said:

Let's put it this way. Do you admit that science aims to reveal truth? If you say no, then I don't think we need to continue the conversation anymore because we are talking about things at different level. Hens do not speak to ducks. They cannot communicate with each other.

If you say yes, let me know how you define truth. For me, self-consistency is the touch stone of truth. If a theory that cannot justify itself, it is far from truth. In searching of a self-consistent theory, you need a self-consistent tool. If a tool cannot even justify itself, do you think the justification it offers to a theory is trustworthy? Now the question is whether logic can justify logic itself, or the method of induction can provide justification to the method of induction. A conclusion from induction without exhausting all samples is trustworthy? With a flawed tool, what a chance it is to unveil truth.

I know it's hard to convince people with some alien ideas, but with this conversation, I think it will, at least, leave some impression in your mind and you can verify it in your real life to test it. After all, people only trust their own experience. 

Science aims to provide predictive models of nature. Truth is a notoriously tendentious word to use in connection with scientific theories. It has been said, rightly in my view, that in science all truth is provisional.

In chemistry, for instance, it is not uncommon to have more than one model for the same thing, with both acknowledged to be only approximations. One chooses the model appropriate to the task at hand and it would be considered very naïve to call either of them "truth".

Theories in science justify themselves by how well they model and thus predict what we observe in nature. If two given theories are not fully mutually compatible, that does not indicate a flaw in logic. It merely reflects the possibilities that either we do not have the relevant observations of nature to resolve the contradiction, or that the problem is too complex to model exactly. (Physics is unable to model exactly any chemical system more complex than the hydrogen molecule ion H₂⁺.)

You may consider this response is such that you do not wish to discuss further with me, but if so I may draw conclusions about what tool is having trouble justifying itself. 😆  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Pooh said:

Let's put it this way. Do you admit that science aims to reveal truth?

No. Science makes models of the behavior of nature.Physics, especially, has elements that it admits up front are not supposed to be “truth” i.e. they don’t physically exist. 

There’s no way to confirm that these are the “truth” since the only way to test them is with observation/experiment.

2 hours ago, Pooh said:

Hens do not speak to ducks. They cannot communicate with each other.

I don’t think this is true. A display of aggression and the resulting actions counts as communication. Birds do this all the time. 

 

___

Do you have any concrete examples if Dao coming up with any scientific insights?

[Pooh]

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Truth in science is what agrees with observations of the day and seems to reflect how nature behaves. I add the word 'seems' because what a theory says today may change in the light of new information tomorrow. There's no such thing as 'sitting on your laurels' in science. Truth is for religion and other non-scientific interests.

First, thanks to everyone who replies. It takes time to read and your reply, at least, shows that you are interested in this topic. I'm grateful of that.

What you are saying is exactly the problem of logic. A once logical conclusion can be debunked by a single observation, and, therefore, logic is not a reliable tool. (Let's say fact first and personal feeling later. ). If you don't agree this statement, explain the logic behind it. Why is logic still reliable, when it gives misleading conclusion again and again? We can only use logic as a common point for communication. 

[CharonY]

21 minutes ago, Pooh said:

First, thanks to everyone who replies. It takes time to read and your reply, at least, shows that you are interested in this topic. I'm grateful of that.

What you are saying is exactly the problem of logic. A once logical conclusion can be debunked by a single observation, and, therefore, logic is not a reliable tool. (Let's say fact first and personal feeling later. ). If you don't agree this statement, explain the logic behind it. Why is logic still reliable, when it gives misleading conclusion again and again? We can only use logic as a common point for communication. 

Why are people using hammers when screwdrivers are so much better at putting screws into walls? 

The reason is that different tools are used for different purposes. Logic is helpful to investigate conclusions in relation to a given premise. If the established premise is valid for a given question, the conclusion might also be. Even if the premise is incorrect, it allows for speculative investigations. Logic is a structural element in thinking about a given issue and allows for the creation of nonsensical connections. 

 

[Bufofrog]

41 minutes ago, Pooh said:

A once logical conclusion can be debunked by a single observation, and, therefore, logic is not a reliable tool.

It's way better tool than illogic.

[MigL]

Four posts and already three demerit points ....

Word of advice.
When you're new to a forum, your first post should 'test the waters', not be a verbose diatribe of 100 lines railing against the subject that is the purpose of this discussion forum.

You will make a bad first impression, and no one will bother reading it.

[Pooh]

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Why are people using hammers when screwdrivers are so much better at putting screws into walls? 

The reason is that different tools are used for different purposes. Logic is helpful to investigate conclusions in relation to a given premise. If the established premise is valid for a given question, the conclusion might also be. Even if the premise is incorrect, it allows for speculative investigations. Logic is a structural element in thinking about a given issue and allows for the creation of nonsensical connections. 

 

To be honest, I don't get the point. I gues you are saying that logic is the best tool you have, but it's irrelevant to whether the tool is reliable. When you say "it allows for speculative investigations", I guess you are saying that sometimes logic makes you feel frustrated because you have to do something speculative under the guidance of logic. Correct me if I'm wrhong.

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Four posts and already three demerit points ....

Word of advice.
When you're new to a forum, your first post should 'test the waters', not be a verbose diatribe of 100 lines railing against the subject that is the purpose of this discussion forum.

You will make a bad first impression, and no one will bother reading it.

Thanks for the advise.

11 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

It's way better tool than illogic.

You tell the truth.

On 12/31/2023 at 10:52 AM, TheVat said:

Wait, didn't Lao-tzu say "the Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao" - ?

I wonder if Pooh spiked the honey jar.

Haha! Thanks for pointing this out. Let me trasform this sentence to something that is akin to the title of my thread.

"the Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao" is literally means "Dao is undaoist." I know the word of "undaoist" does not exist. The meaning of "undaoist" to Dao is the same as illogical to logic and unscientific to science. Although this word does not exist, I guess you can get my point.

In my main thread, I have already explained why "Dao is undaoist". Dao's defining feature is reversal. Therefore, if we assume Dao is true, by using the rule of Dao, we can make the conclusion that Dao is false because Dao needs to reverse itself and this process is called "Dao is undaoist". You expression is a common understanding of Lao-tzu's word. However, Lao-tzu is actually showing people that Dao is self-consistent, rather than telling people that Dao is unspeakable.

I know Pooh is a cartoon character, but it's also the nickname that Lao-tzu gives to Dao. Pooh means wood log and has the pronounciation of "Pooh" in Chinese. Dao and Pooh have the common point that they are both a bit useless but foster great potentials to be useful thing. Wood log is not as useful as chair, table, or bed etc. However, you can easily cut it and turn it into useful things. It's much easier to cut wood log and turn it into a table than to convert a chair to a table. Although wood log is not as useful as a piece of furniture, it does contains great potential, and meanwhile, although furniture is much more useful than wood log, it also loses its potential. From this perspective, Dao is similar to Pooh. Dao is also useless. However, it contains great potential. It give birth to the ten thousand things and the ten thousand things all carry the gene of Dao. Logic and science are also the creation of Dao and therefore subject to the rule of Dao. That's how I make the title of the post. Of course, it's true that Dao is not as useful as logic or science in the same way when we compare wood log to chair or table.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Pooh said:

What you are saying is exactly the problem of logic. A once logical conclusion can be debunked by a single observation, and, therefore, logic is not a reliable tool.

Do you have any examples of this? Where it was the logic, and not a faulty premise, that is the problem?

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Pooh said:

To be honest, I don't get the point. I gues you are saying that logic is the best tool you have, but it's irrelevant to whether the tool is reliable. When you say "it allows for speculative investigations", I guess you are saying that sometimes logic makes you feel frustrated because you have to do something speculative under the guidance of logic. Correct me if I'm wrhong.

So, what do you think is the best tool for the job?

Excuse's are often confused with reason, this crinkle cut nail is impossible to hammer in with a screw driver...