Logic, Science, and Probability

[BenjaminRVA]

I thought this statement by Nassim Taleb was an interesting way of framing things and wanted to post it here and see what y'all thought of it.

 

Do you think this is an appropriate characterization? The way I would paraphrase it is "Logic is for what we can't test, the scientific method is for what we can, and we use probability in the space between the two." Is there anything wrong with that perspective? Any way to clarify it, further?

 

[Wuzzums]

The way I've always looked at things is that science is for describing the world through research and philosophy solely deals in logic. In other words science requires hard evidence to disprove a claim whereas in philosophy logic suffices. I don't need to do a study on whether or not a square circle exists but I do need to do a study on whether or not a black swan exists.

[luxfelix]

Consider this model:

 

A Venn diagram with two circles for Logos and Pathos (left-brain/right-brain, male/female, etc.), creating a vesica piscis for Ethos (philosophy, ethics, etc.) in between them.

 

Additionally, regarding philosophy, the scientific method, and logic/theoretical postulates, there is a gradual falloff stemming from the center; in this way, philosophy/ethics is the foundation for the scientific method (with its focus on universals) while the latter confirms the former (within self-evidence).

[fractional slacker]

Science is not what I know. Science is shorthand for the scientific method. It is a method for determining and observing behavior of energy and matter and the theories that can be derived from such.

"Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know, and probability is the border between the two" 
Without objective definitions, that is a word salad assertion of nothingness.

[Donnadogsoth]

Where does creative hypothesis enter the picture that Russell has painted?  Science discovers laws by advancing hypotheses and testing them empirically.

[WorBlux]

Epistemology or the study of knowledge. What exactly does it mean to know.

 

Science or more precisely natural science is oberving or testing something very carefully. Philisophy is thinking really hard about something.  I think philosophy can find knowledge even though what science uncovers can more readily and obviosly be accecpted as convincing.

[BenjaminRVA]

How about this:

 

Logic is about determining whether arguments are valid....do the premises lead logically to the conclusion?

 

The scientific method is about testing the validity of our premises. When you combine valid premises in a valid argument, the product is sound conclusions, or truth. Probability is the grayscale when our premises are untested by the scientific method or the results are inconclusive.

 

When our premises refer to the natural world, they require the scientific method to test their validity. When they refer to abstractions, it's a simple logical test. Insofar as science is always open to new evidence, arguments with reference to the natural world will always have conclusions that are plotted somewhere on the probability grayscale (even if that's functionally 99.99999% probability that it's true). Arguments which deal only in abstractions, however, can be known to be 100% true ("A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same way").