Examples of logical theories that are trumped by empirical evidence?

[MysterionMuffles]

I was watching Stef's video about philosophically disproving God, and in the process he talked about how to prove empirical facts. Essentially, for anything to be provable, it must first be logically consistent, but must always be backed by evidence. In Evidence vs Logic, evidence always wins and someone in the Youtube comments asked what he meant by that.

I'm quite proud of my response, which was this: It is logically consistent to believe that music is the absence of silence because if instruments produced no sound...it'd just be silence. However, there is empirical evidence that silence plays an essential role in music. There's silence between the beats and notes, and each instrument, however briefly, will drop out to highlight the accompanying instruments around them. Furthermore, many compositions include brief breaks of silence between sections, so the logical theory that music is the absence of silence becomes void.

I said it much more simply in the comments section, but you get the idea. Half a minute of thinking deeply to provide such an example produced this argument of mine, and now I am wondering if anyone else has examples of logically consistent theories that are trumped by empirical evidence.

[Existing Alternatives]

 

 music is the absence of silence because if instruments produced no sound...it'd just be silence.

 

 

I’m not sure if this is entirely correct. As you go on to state silence is included in music. Funny enough, Wikipedia’s definition of music is “an art form whose medium is sound and silence.” Perhaps, silence would be an absence of sound?

...but then, what about the tree falling in the forest... []

[MysterionMuffles]

exactly, it's not entirely correct because it is just a theory. It would only sound logical to the common populace because at the surface, it sounds believable.

My point was that evidence of proof didn't require the equal correlation of logic AND evidence, rather that there may be things that are logically sound, but don't neccessarily hold up once evidence is provided. And I was just wondering if anyone has other or better examples akin to mine.

As for the tree falling in the forest...of course it makes a sound. It's not completely dependant on a receiptient hearing it to validate the existence of the sound.

[Pepin]

If specific concepts are derived through instances of a specfic class, and if general concepts are derived through specific concepts, then general concepts including logical abstractions must be derived through instances.

[MysterionMuffles]

I'm confused :S what does that mean?

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

I'm not sure it is true that evidence defeats logic.  I will give you an example.

Suppose I told you that all objects fall at the same rate - that the acceleration due to gravity is approximately the same for all objects near Earth.  This is what my mathematical models and abstract concepts of physics tell me.  You proceed to drop a bowling ball and a feather at the same time and find that the evidence suggests bowling balls fall much faster than feathers.  The man who believes only what empirical evidence suggests has now formed a false belief.  The issue that arrises is that perception is not reality.  The mathematical models and concepts of physics assume no air resistence.  The empirical observation does not, but as you can see, the false conclusion that all feathers fall slower than all bowling balls stems from what is not seen.  There are always lurking variables.

If you ever witness some empirical observation that does not conform to logic - that is to say it is illogical - then you are likely missing key information.  This is why I believe logic ought to always trump empiricism.

I also take issue with your example.  Your argument is really a conflation of terms.  You start by saying that music is a lack of silence.  What you mean by this is to say that a lack of silence is necessary, but not sufficient, for music to exist, which is true.  You then claim that empirical evidence indicates that rests occur in music and therefore silence sometimes is music too.  The problem is that this does not contradict your first claim when the meaning is more clearly explicated.

[RestoringGuy]

 

If you ever witness some empirical observation that does not conform to logic - that is to say it is illogical - then you are likely missing key information.  This is why I believe logic ought to always trump empiricism.

 

I tend to agree with this interpretation, with the caveat that logic must be empirically verified in some context in order for it to be valid.  A person could read sheet music, and maybe never have heard sound, yet they can conceivably use other senses to process the music and judge the quality. Also, objects that are previously unseen are discovered by inventions such as the telescope. So we clearly allow construction of an apparatus to be a validation tool added to our senses.  One of those tools is formal logic, and it is added to our senses because it is needed to make predictions.  While formal logic seems to be detached from physics (that is what we are taught anyway),we still find it indispensable to make empirical predictions much as a telescope is indispensable tool to detect distant objects.  If a particular logical theory seems totally useless, and not even a computer can confirm or deny it, then it is difficult to say in what sense the theory is valid.

 

[MysterionMuffles]

I get what you guys are saying, so I guess...if logic does not conform to the empirical evidence that trumps it, can't it just be easily revised to fit the reality?

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

Why must logic be empirically verified?  Also, I think you just made a logical contradiction when you claimed that logic needs to be "empirically verified" yet also claim that formal logic is an empirical validation tool.  If both are true, isn't logic empirically verifying logic?  It's like saying you shouldn't believe empirical evidence without empirical evidence to verify it with.  I disagree that physics, as it is taught to us, is detached from formal logic.  All theories of physics must be logically consistent and there is a huge amount of time spent ensuring that they are.  

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

 

I get what you guys are saying, so I guess...if logic does not conform to the empirical evidence that trumps it, can't it just be easily revised to fit the reality?

 

No it cannot.  It required centuries of work and an entirely new way of looking at the universe using what's called "tensors" to understand general and special relativiity and essentially disprove Newtonian mechanics.  Yes, yes people like to say that Einstein didn't "disprove" Newton, but merely completed it.  That's just because people have codified Newton as some beacon of intellect... whatever.  Newtonian mechanics is an approximation of special relativity at low velocities... so... yeah...

Anyway, these theories are proved reglardless of empirical verification because they are mathematically and logically consistent with axiomatic principles of the universe.  The beauty of Newton's work was that it required zero empirical observation.  All you had to do was accept three axioms (Newton's Laws of Motion) and all of the equations of kinematics, work, energy, momentum, and torque followed from those three axioms.  I suggest you study Euclidean geometry as well.  Euclid just took three axioms and then made an entire geometric theory based off nothing but those three axioms.

In theoretical physics, the fewer the axioms, the better the theory.  What that means is, the fewer empirical observations required to get people to accept a theory, the better the theory is. 

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

Suppose I told you that all objects fall at the same rate - that the acceleration due to gravity is approximately the same for all objects near Earth.  This is what my mathematical models and abstract concepts of physics tell me.  You proceed to drop a bowling ball and a feather at the same time and find that the evidence suggests bowling balls fall much faster than feathers.

If you ever witness some empirical observation that does not conform to logic - that is to say it is illogical - then you are likely missing key information.

 

No, sorry. You are using the concept of models and evidence incorrectly. If you posit "objects fall at the same rate" and then I drop a bowling ball and a feather at the same time, and the feather takes longer to hit the ground, then your proposition is false. Objects do not, in fact, fall at the same rate.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "gravity exerts a consistent amount of force on all objects" and that might be true. But that is a different proposition than "objects fall at the same rate" because the former only implies the latter in the absence of any other force. As you observe, air resistance is another force. Indeed, a Saturn V rocket experiences the same force of gravity during it's launch as a bowling ball dropped from a building; but the rocket exerts a much greater counter-force to allow it to escape the gravity well of the Earth.

This has nothing to do with the accuracy of mathematical models. It has everything to do with the COMPLETENESS of theoretical propositions. The original proposition is simply false, because it does not offer sufficient description to make it true. The fact that you left out critical conditions from the proposition that, when applied, prove correct, does not somehow mean that your original proposition is true. It's still false. Your AMENDED proposition (objects of similar mass fall at the same rate in a vaccuum) is true, but that says nothing about the validity of the original statement.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

Thanks for your thoughts but it seems you missed the point entirely.  Obviously we are talking about incomplete logic and incomplete empirical evidence, otherwise logic theories and empirical evidence would never be in conflict.  We are specifically talking about the case when a logical theory conflicts with empirical observation.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

Thanks for your thoughts but it seems you missed the point entirely.  Obviously we are talking about incomplete logic and incomplete empirical evidence, otherwise logic theories and empirical evidence would never be in conflict.  We are specifically talking about the case when a logical theory conflicts with empirical observation.

 

Yes, exactly. And in the example you provided, the logical theory is incorrect.

"Incomplete" is just a forgiving way to say "error."

[MysterionMuffles]

But again, that WAS the point...it was meant to be incorrect. But to any common person, it would sound like a logical theory. Then if you dig deeper and really study the facets of music, the evidence is as I said, that silence is an important component to music.

Why can't logical theories be revised? Empirical evidence is founded in predictable and grounded reality, so there's no way to physically change its properties. However, logical theories are just thought patterns. Hypotheses. They should be subject to change when new evidence is gathered, such as the Earth being flat. It was logically consistent back then to think that the Earth was flat because we walk upon flat planes, but then new evidence came to suggest that the Earth was round, and thus the new accepted logic was that the Earth was round.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts but it seems you missed the point entirely.  Obviously we are talking about incomplete logic and incomplete empirical evidence, otherwise logic theories and empirical evidence would never be in conflict.  We are specifically talking about the case when a logical theory conflicts with empirical observation.

 

Yes, exactly. And in the example you provided, the logical theory is incorrect.

"Incomplete" is just a forgiving way to say "error."

 

That's just factually incorrect.  Incomplete theories are theories that apply to specific situations and don't apply to others.  This is why people refer to Newtonian physics as "incomplete" compared to Einstein's theories of relativity.  Newtonian's conception of physics applied only to things that are big and slow.  Einstein's theories expanded this application to, not merely big and slow, but additionally things that are small and slow, and big and fast.  Later, quantum mechanics would be discovered to develop theories for small and fast objects.  There are situations beyond the scope of known physics, such as at the singularity of a black hole.

 The incompleteness of my "objects falling" theory was simply that it must be confined to isolated systems with no external forces other than gravity.  The incompleteness of the music example was solely in the ambiguity of "is" where in one instance it was mean to mean "necessary for" and the other it was meant to mean "sufficient for".  That is a logical fallacy, not merely an incomplete theory.

[fingolfin]

None of those are theories though. Newton was a mathemeticiana nd alechemist, not a scientist, which he himself admitted to.

There's a difference between description and theory. Newtonian math describes (e.g. motion of objects towards each other). It doesn't explain anything. Einstein did have a hypothesis and theory, to his credit, even though they were surrealistic. All math is descriptive. Math is quantitative, physics is qualitative. Physics demands what is physical (objects) in a hypothesis, math does not.

Same goes for quantum et al.

There are very, very few authentic scientists on earth. But academia makes it a job title now, so everyone and their friend is now a "scientist". Very very few who can explain natural phenomena rationally. 'Rationally' means there is no logical contradiction, all key terms are defined unambiguously, that all hypothesized objects can be visualised, and that the explanations follow logically from the initial assumptions.

Empiricism is a modern philosophy that has nothing to do with the scientific method. Empiricism introduces subjective proofs and butchers the word "evidence" for political reasons (arm-twisting). 

Finally, it's crucial to remember that all scientific theories only deal with the possible. That's as far as we can get, because we're not omniscient gods. What people believe/know/trust/accept/prove/disprove etc is post-scientific.

[RestoringGuy]

 

There's a difference between description and theory. Newtonian math describes (e.g. motion of objects towards each other). It doesn't explain anything. Einstein did have a hypothesis and theory, to his credit, even though they were surrealistic. All math is descriptive. Math is quantitative, physics is qualitative. Physics demands what is physical (objects) in a hypothesis, math does not.

 

That idea seems to suggest any old formula or expression that can be written constitutes math.  I think that is not exactly the right picture, that is just a symbolic view of math.  Mathematics is also process by which proofs are done, and not any formula is going to be provable.  There is a connection between foundational axioms and the set of conclusions that may be derived.  That connection can be tested procedurally, either by human or computer verification.  Well I guess that is "descriptive" in the sense that it describes (and indicates empirically) whether or not a proof can be done.  But it seems strange to me to require a verification procedure but also say theory has nothing to do with it.

There are points in time where I believed logic and math were just useful, and that is why I study them merely as a handy fiction.  Then i changed my view and believed mathematics is this real "other world", only some of which comes in handy to us in the real world, and our logical verification process exposes this other world as real but leaves it detached from ours physically.  Then I changed by view again, and realized all such mathematics you might call "true" are connected together by proofs, and there is always a context and scientific test proving exactly where any bit of mathematics is useful.  The proofs are always done "in the real world", not in some imaginary place, which makes them capable tools of making predictions of physical systems (especially those sorts of physical system which carry out the proofs).  It is certainly possible to say mathematical concepts are descriptive, but they are also predictive which I think brings them closer to scientific theory.  The descriptive part is, in some sense, weaker because you have to define variables and have a context of meaning in order to say a description is happening.  Whether that part of the process is properly called "math" is something I think nobody seems to agree on.  Some will insist if you count birds in the sky and use simple addition, you are no longer doing mathematics, it is somehow applied science.

 

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts but it seems you missed the point entirely.  Obviously we are talking about incomplete logic and incomplete empirical evidence, otherwise logic theories and empirical evidence would never be in conflict.  We are specifically talking about the case when a logical theory conflicts with empirical observation.

 

Yes, exactly. And in the example you provided, the logical theory is incorrect.

"Incomplete" is just a forgiving way to say "error."

 

That's just factually incorrect.  Incomplete theories are theories that apply to specific situations and don't apply to others.

 

Did your example specify those situations as distinct from others? No. It made a universal claim. Therefore, as a theory, it didn't apply to only specific situations; it applied to all situations. You only revised it based on the empirical outcome.

The incompleteness of my "objects falling" theory was simply that it must be confined to isolated systems with no external forces other than gravity.

But your theory didn't state that until after the empirical test (well, our hypothetical empirical test anyway) contradicted it. That was when you revised the theory (or I guess I revised it -- or Galileo did...) and added the rather large caveat of "no external forces." Once that's added, *it's a new theory*.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

This is factually inaccurate again.  The conclusion "all objects fall at the same rate" is based off of premises that pressuppose the scope of the logical argument that, yes, was omitted.  Again, it was omitted INTENTIONALLY because I was specifically picking an example of a logical theory that conflicted with emprical observation.  I've already gone over this.  All logical theories correspond with empirical observations unless there is a false axiom in the logical proof or lurking variables in the empirical observation.Tou all are missing the point!  Empirical observation doesn't trump logical argumentation!  That's the whole point of this. 

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

This is factually inaccurate again.  The conclusion "all objects fall at the same rate" is based off of premises that pressuppose the scope of the logical argument that, yes, was omitted.

Which is a fancy way of saying "it was wrong."

Again, it was omitted INTENTIONALLY because I was specifically picking an example of a logical theory that conflicted with emprical observation.  I've already gone over this.  All logical theories correspond with empirical observations unless there is a false axiom in the logical proof or lurking variables in the empirical observation.

No, this is a reversal of the principle. ALL logical theories do not correspond to empircal observation. To wit: "the sky is green." See? There is no correspondence to empircal observation, because I can posit anything I want.

Tou all are missing the point!  Empirical observation doesn't trump logical argumentation!  That's the whole point of this.

Asserting your original position again is not an argument. It's just repetition.

Look, let's take a simpler example than gravity. Let's say I propose a theory of counting...

2+2=5

So you test my theory. You take two rocks and put them next to two other rocks, and then you count. And you respond with "no, 2+2=4"

Imagine then, that I respond with "sorry, my theory was incomplete. I meant that in the space where all equality includes an additional +1, then the equation is true. So 2+2(+1)=5"

If you're going to then say that the original theory of 2+2=5 was true, under certain previously unspecified conditions, then I would submit that you don't understand the meaning of 'true'.

Now, to take a slightly less glaring example, let us imagine that I'm cooking a meal for a dinner party of 8. I have a recipe that gives me instructions for one serving. That recipe calls for 3.5 grams of salt. I think "okay, 3.5 g times 8 servings, so I need 27g of salt." And I dutifully measure out the 27 grams and cook up my meal and everyone's happy.

Well, you could argue that the meal was an empirical test of 8*3.5=27. I acted on the assumption that was true, the outcome was favorable, and therefore we passed an empirical test.

But the problem is that the difference between 27g and 28g (the correct theoretical answer) is trivial in the context of a meal serving 8 people. (side note: yes, I realize that 3500mg of sodium chloride is a ridiculously unhealthy amount.) We could re-examine the math, or we could conduct a specific test of measuring what happens when we combine 8 3.5 containers of NaCl into one single amount -- and ultimately realize that the theory that 8*3.5=27 was wrong.

The degree to which it was wrong was unnoticable for our present empirical concerns. But that doesn't make the theory suddenly true. It was just as wrong before we did the test as after when we did the test. What changed wasn't the validity of the theory, or even the taste of the meal, but our knowledge thereof.

This is the exact nature of Newtonian vs. relativistic physics. Einstein proved that Newton was wrong. The nature of his error made no more difference when throwing a ball or building a bridge than 27g vs. 28g makes in a meal for 8 people, but the fact that the error was marginal doesn't change false to true. It's our knowledge that changed, not the validity of the theory.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

It's almost like talking to a wall... a wall that strawmans you by directly quoting your position and then saying, "ALL logical theories do not correspond to empircal observation. To wit: "the sky is green." See? There is no correspondence to empircal observation, because I can posit anything I want." as if I never actually said, "[/font]unless there is a false axiom in the logical proof or lurking variables in the empirical observation."

 Then you wonder why I keep reasserting my original position... ugh... it's because you keep STRAWMANNING ME!

 So let's look at your example.  Are we living in a world that conforms to our current number conventions?  So in REALITY 2+2=4?  Okay, I'm going to assume that's what we're doing.

Proposition: 2+2=5

I can already disprove this LOGICALLY though.  There is no scope or condition for which 2+2 ever will =5.  Empirical evidence is not required to test this logical theory... simply because we have defined the number 2 and the number 4 and the action of addition to mean, by definition, 2+2=4.

Okay... but now you're creating an entirely new universe where all addition has an additional (+1)?
Awesome!  This has absolutely no correlation to my "objects falling" example.  I don't need to define an entirely new universe for all objects to fall at the same rate.  In fact, in reality, all objects do fall at the same rate when affected by equivalent external forces.  The theory of physics was only proved wrong empirically because of LURKING VARIABLES in the observation process.

 Thanks for the rant on cooking and table salt... but what's your point?  Therefore empirical evidence trumps logical theories when they conflict?  Or maybe your point was just to waste my time.[/font]

[RestoringGuy]

 

 So let's look at your example.  Are we living in a world that conforms to our current number conventions?  So in REALITY 2+2=4?  Okay, I'm going to assume that's what we're doing.

Proposition: 2+2=5

I can already disprove this LOGICALLY though.  There is no scope or condition for which 2+2 ever will =5.  Empirical evidence is not required to test this logical theory... simply because we have defined the number 2 and the number 4 and the action of addition to mean, by definition, 2+2=4.

Doing a logical proof requires a physical mind.  One person may call a proof "logical", another says it is "empirical" because they describe the determined way our brain atoms spit out a known truth in the context of a language previously learned.

In an early podcast, Stef mentioned something about logic. That we derive it from things like object persistence (when a ball rolls under the couch, we learn the ball still exists despite it being totally gone from our senses).  At the time I thought that was crazy.  What the hell does logic have to do with physical matter, except insofar as it helps us describe physical matter?  But no.  Now I realize logic itself grows out of the physical world, not just vice-versa.  And it does so not in some kooky organic way where our minds create it.  Rather logic makes predictions, and if a proposition fails to make any predictions whatsoever (in the physical tangible world) then it isn't a logical proposition at all.  The piece we are missing is that our brains and the atoms in them are machines.  Not necessarily deterministic -- but predictable enough that we can distinguish between a repeatable logical argument, and one that is non-repeatable.  And repetition happens in empirically validated ways.  Stef I think was right or at least on to something important.

 

[MysterionMuffles]

Wow guys thanks for over complicating a topic I intended to be simple. And I say that genuinely without sarcasm it's very interesting mind boggling stuff you guys mentioned. So now I kinda wanna take a backseat and just observe how you guys deal this out if you choose to continue the debate.

 

[TheRobin]

 

Wow guys thanks for over complicating a topic I intended to be simple. And I say that genuinely without sarcasm it's very interesting mind boggling stuff you guys mentioned. So now I kinda wanna take a backseat and just observe how you guys deal this out if you choose to continue the debate.

 

To dumb it down again a little: In regards to your original question I'd say that most fiction ever produced falls into the category of logically consistent but trumped by evidence.

In general I found it very helpful when I started making the distinction that logic is something that applies to concepts and empirical evidence is just a fancy word for stuff that's not someones personal imagination

So logic tells you whether the concepts you use are logical or illogical, correct/valid/meaningful or incorrect/invalid/meaningless. And empirical reality tells you what claims are true or false. Since it's the claims that are true or false, in order to actually mean anything they need to be logical.
That also conveniently keeps me from ever having to argue whether 2+2=5 is true or not

[Pepin]

 

I'm confused :S what does that mean?

 

 

-Concepts are an abstractions derived from instances found in reality. Concepts tend to lump instances into a class with various properties and behaviors. It is easiest to think about this in terms of biology in that instances that have similar properties and behavior are lumped into a classification called [animal name]. 

In particle physics, particles that have particular properties and behaviors are lumped into a classification. For instance, there was found to be a large number of alike particles all with the same mass and behavior. The instances of these particles were lumped together to form a class called "electron". The concept of the electron is derived through the empirical observation of a large number of instances with the same behavior and properties.

This is all to say that the class does not define the instance, yet rather the instance defines the class. There is a margin of error depending on what the abstraction intends to describe. Particle physics has very strict definitions, while biology does not. For instance, horses have one head, but a horse born with two heads would still be considered a horse.

 

-Logic is a further abstraction that are derived from the concept of classes. This is to say that logic deals strictly with abstractions. Logic does not have to describe anything in reality in order for it to be considered valid. For instance:

 

if a = b

and b = c

then a = c

 

does not describe anything in reality, but the statement would be considered valid.

 

-Because of this, the validity of any theory that intends to describe reality is contingent upon the classes they are describing. Since classes are derived through the empirical observation of instances, any disagreement about the validity of a statement regarding a such classes, would be resolved through the empirical observation of instances. 

 

-It is interesting to note that if concepts are derived from empirical reality, and if logic is derived from concepts, then logic must be derived from empirical reality. 

For instance, binary logic can apply to reality because binary logic is derived through empiricism. It may be observed that a rock cannot fall upwards and downwards at the same time. From this, the concept of opposites can be formed, in that 

 

if falling up and falling down cannot occur simultaneously

and if a rock is falling down

then the rock is not falling up

 

can be further abstracted to

 

if a and b cannot occur simultaneously

and c is b

then c is not a

 

Again, the logical abstraction cannot describe anything real unless concepts that describe something real are put into the equation.

 

[MysterionMuffles]

 

 

Wow guys thanks for over complicating a topic I intended to be simple. And I say that genuinely without sarcasm it's very interesting mind boggling stuff you guys mentioned. So now I kinda wanna take a backseat and just observe how you guys deal this out if you choose to continue the debate.

 

To dumb it down again a little: In regards to your original question I'd say that most fiction ever produced falls into the category of logically consistent but trumped by evidence.

In general I found it very helpful when I started making the distinction that logic is something that applies to concepts and empirical evidence is just a fancy word for stuff that's not someones personal imagination

So logic tells you whether the concepts you use are logical or illogical, correct/valid/meaningful or incorrect/invalid/meaningless. And empirical reality tells you what claims are true or false. Since it's the claims that are true or false, in order to actually mean anything they need to be logical.
That also conveniently keeps me from ever having to argue whether 2+2=5 is true or not

 

This was all I was just trying to say...

fiction is another good example. If its well written fiction it will follow a logical pattern of consistency between the characters and plot lines, but empirically I know none of this really happened because it was someone's imagination that conjured up the story. Even if the author projected things from their real life, they only used those elements to enhance their work of fiction as an inspiration device, and twisted enough that it barely resembles what it was based on. Even in stories based on real life people an situations the way they are presented will seem logical and as consistent as possible, but there's added sentimentality and sensationalism to add entertainment value. ie The Social Network the Facebook movie was more of a characature of Mark Zuckrburg and his life but the empirical evidence is in what actually happened around that time...which of course is a lot less dramatic than portrayed in the film.

[LovePrevails]

 

Examples of logical theories that are trumped by empirical evidence?

 

this jsut reminded me of Aristotle's physics, like things fall to the ground because they tend towards a state of rest (instead of gravity)

they made great sense 2,500 years or so a go, they were just wrong.

[RestoringGuy]

I do not think fiction generally qualifies as a logical theory.  It cannot be independently reproduced.  An equation for gravity, in principle, can be reproduced by a scientist on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy.  Fermat's last theorem, or the forty-thousandth digit of pi in base ten could also be reproduced independently.  Whether Santiago catches a giant fish, that seems impossible to reproduce without having some indirect contact with Hemingway.

Perhaps there are bits and pieces in a fictional novel that can be logically reproduced by a totally independent thinker.  But to that extent, those bits are pieces are non-fictional.

 

[MysterionMuffles]

 

I do not think fiction generally qualifies as a logical theory.  It cannot be independently reproduced.  

 

 

Actually they can. Fiction writing contains a lot of different formulas that are consistent despite of the themes and ideas presented. Story and character arcs have reproducable formulas such as beginning, middle, climax and end. Even when stories are switched around in chronology of events, the feel is always the same. A character wanted something, we have our start, they run into obstacles we got the middle, and then comes a huge hurdle that tests their will where we get the climax, and finally at the end they get their reward or punishment for their actions.

Character arcs have reproducable outcomes because characters are usually based on archetypes. They used to be based on one each, but the advance in the need for originality and diversity characters possess traits of numerous archetypes at a time these days. Like mecosystems basically. Taking a simple example: let's look at the archetype of a coward. That character will exude the lack of confidence and power a coward does, but once they find something worth striving for, they make the choice to overcome their fears if ever so slowly through said hurdles. This motivates their arc to develop into someone with a bit more confidence if not an extravagant advancement.

Thats how writing about a type of character is reproducable because its logically consistent with the world they inhabit in which their will is tested. However in empirical reality, similar people with the same kind of cowardice may have to face hurdles either identical, easier or harder that will either give them the outcome of more or less confidence. Stories have to end and give resolutions and of course there are open endings, but typically they end in a reward or punishment for the character. Real life though is much more ongoing til death so evidence would be that a coward who gains insight on becoming more confident may either continue to develop or dwindle over time. And that pattern wavers because real life isn't as formulaic as fiction.

[SirJamesIII]

One may be tempted to say that, "euclidean geometry is false because non-euclidean geometries also govern physical phenomenon because empirically we are forced to believe so." But the same would be true for non-euclidean geometries. The truth is, this is not a commentary on whether or not euclidean geometry is true or not, but rather, that euclidean geometry is limited to the extent that it can describe percieved reality (as with any other formal system of logic). Moreover empiricsim itself is limited to the extent to which it can describe percieved reality. If my hypothesis is that there is a one in pi chance that x will cause y, then it will take an infinite number of experiments to prove this. There is no "evidence" one can point to to prove such a proposition, yet the probability of such relationships existing in nature is extremely high considering the set of uncountable numbers will always encapsulate the set of countable numbers. 

[SirJamesIII]

 

Look, let's take a simpler example than gravity. Let's say I propose a theory of counting...

2+2=5

So you test my theory. You take two rocks and put them next to two other rocks, and then you count. And you respond with "no, 2+2=4

 

Does the cloud counter have any use for number theory considering one cloud+one cloud=one cloud? Or how about counting raindrops on a window pane? How do you think all this number theory would make the

 feel?

Suppose this is how we count numbers: 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, 7....

[Guest darkskyabove]

There is no logical explanation for an illogical situation.

[RestoringGuy]

Actually they can. Fiction writing contains a lot of different formulas that are consistent despite of the themes and ideas presented. Story and character arcs have reproducable formulas such as beginning, middle, climax and end. Even when stories are switched around in chronology of events, the feel is always the same. A character wanted something, we have our start, they run into obstacles we got the middle, and then comes a huge hurdle that tests their will where we get the climax, and finally at the end they get their reward or punishment for their actions.

I admit to not being a literary expert.  So why call it fiction?   Take for example:  "Santiago is hungry".  I call that fiction because I just made up the character.  Now consider "Santiago is mortal because Santiago is a man and all men are mortal".  Here the character "Santiago" is fiction and basically just a place holder for any man.  But the main story (ie. the proof) I will say is non-fiction.  Or is it that a story must be called fiction in its entirety even it if the story is only partially made up?

 

[MysterionMuffles]

Hell I even believe that non fiction can very well be fiction if it fails to do what its supposed to: which is retell real life events in the most accurate manner. What constitutes fiction is the intentional use of made up people and made up situations that may sometimes resemble real life people or situations, but it is deliberately delivered in a sequence separate from reality.

 

I can create characters that resemble people in my life, but just because I portray that character to closely resemble their behaviour and even put them in similar situations they've been in in real life--its ultimately fiction because I choose to make them do or say what I want.

 

If I put their real name however and try my best to objectiely portray events as they had happened, that would make it non fiction. But I say non fiction can verge on fiction still because we only do have subjective perspectives so we may twist things to our bias if we were to write an autobiography.

[RestoringGuy]

Hell I even believe that non fiction can very well be fiction if it fails to do what its supposed to: which is retell real life events in the most accurate manner. What constitutes fiction is the intentional use of made up people and made up situations that may sometimes resemble real life people or situations, but it is deliberately delivered in a sequence separate from reality.I can create characters that resemble people in my life, but just because I portray that character to closely resemble their behaviour and even put them in similar situations they've been in in real life--its ultimately fiction because I choose to make them do or say what I want.If I put their real name however and try my best to objectiely portray events as they had happened, that would make it non fiction. But I say non fiction can verge on fiction still because we only do have subjective perspectives so we may twist things to our bias if we were to write an autobiography.

I see what you mean.  Although books do not contain people.  They contain the names of people.  Names are all made up at some point, whether the people are real or not.  If I write an autobiography accurately enough, and then change my name, the book is now fiction?  Or if I write a story that involves a made up character, but coincidentally matches the events of some real guy, the book is called "fiction" only because that guy's name does not yet match the one in the book? 

 

To me this is like using letter x in an equation.  We know x is not a number, it's a letter.  But we let it play the fictional role of a number for purposes of solving the equation.  In that same way, I may write the name Santiago to describe a fictional character.  Or I may as well have told the accurate story of a real person whose name is something else.  Should we distinguish the story fiction vs. nonfiction depending how I choose to name people?  Maybe that's like saying a solution to an equation might be different depending which choice of letters are placed for variables.  This means the speed of light is c=3*10^8 m/s, it's nonfiction only if you use the letter c to denote it, and fiction if you use a nonconventional letter.