Mole Posted July 8, 2017 Posted July 8, 2017 Logic begins when it is discovered that A is A, however, how does one discern what is discoverable without first knowing that A is A? Empiricism is a precept to our nature. After all, we are born as little scientists. Empiricism is a given. One cannot argue against it or for it without presupposing it. But if empiricism requires an understanding of logic, then is logic also a precept? (By precepts I mean involuntary knowledge about the world that is not conceptual, no different to how animals know things. It is regulated by our neurobiology.) If logic is a precept, then is it the case that logic is not a concept. But if logic is not a concept, then does logic exist in reality after all? Embedded in the neurons of our brain, so to speak?
shirgall Posted July 9, 2017 Posted July 9, 2017 Logic began shortly after people started making claims. Empiricism began after people started making claims about the real world. 1
ofd Posted July 9, 2017 Posted July 9, 2017 Logic, causality and so on are hardwired in mammal brains. Empiricism is largely based on statistical analysis, be it frequentist or Bayesian.
Wuzzums Posted July 9, 2017 Posted July 9, 2017 There are 2 types of physicists, theoretical physicists and experimental physicists. Theoretical physicists come up with theories that are mathematically sound (logically consistent) and experimental physicists devise experiments to see if those theories are valid in the real world (gather empirical data). This is science. Sometimes you can skip one of those two and still make a valid claim on the world. You can come up with a theory that if the math adds up then it act be treated as a truth without any empirical data. This is what happened to the Higgs Boson/theory of mass thing. Scientists were 99.9% sure it was true but it was only recently they could gather any empirical evidence for it. Other times you can gather data then afterwards come up with a theory that would explain the phenomenon. This is basically how the whole of the medical industry works, "evidence based medicine". (I use math and logic interchangeably because any logical problem can be reduced to the 1+1=2 axiom) Empiricism takes precedence over logic because you cannot argue against reality. Reality is always right and if it is right and it's contrary to your theory then it means your logic/math is flawed. This statement is of course a logical one that can be put to the test of empiricism. So far I know of not a single case where the theory is mathematically (logically) correct and the real world data contradicts it. Therefore I can safely say that reality and logic are strongly linked to one another, inseparable even.
Donnadogsoth Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 I can't see how they could arise separately from one another. Paleolithic Man sees Sabre-Toothed Tiger. If he doesn't accept the evidence of tiger, he will die. If he doesn't accept identity of tiger, he will die. Empirical evidence and logical confirmation go hand in hand.
Mole Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 On 7/10/2017 at 6:21 AM, Wuzzums said: Empiricism takes precedence over logic because you cannot argue against reality. I think this is the answer to my question, but to elaborate on that claim: A=A as a law comes from the empirical evidence that the universe is coherent. I made a mistake thinking that without that law one cannot establish whether the universe is coherent but I don't know why I thought that now. You don't need to know A=A to see that the universe is coherent. You just look at it without any presuppositions at all.
Donnadogsoth Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 On 7/13/2017 at 5:35 AM, Mole said: I think this is the answer to my question, but to elaborate on that claim: A=A as a law comes from the empirical evidence that the universe is coherent. I made a mistake thinking that without that law one cannot establish whether the universe is coherent but I don't know why I thought that now. You don't need to know A=A to see that the universe is coherent. You just look at it without any presuppositions at all. You still have an inner understanding of the principle of identity that you are using to clarify and confirm what your senses are telling you. You can have a logical mind and not know the first things about the discipline of logic. Developing logic into an explicit discipline is another matter.
Recommended Posts