Formal Logic and Scientific Method

When I was in school we always had to show our work. One did not even get credit for the correct answer unless one could demonstrate the correct reasoning by which the solution was attained. Its obvious that 1234567890 never had to show his work or he was uniformly unsuccessful in his attempts.

Its ironic, but not surprising, that a topic that started out discussing formal logic and the role of induction and deduction in the scientific method has degenerated into a dialog half devoid of either. There are only a few participants in this MB who make any effort to explain their reasoning. Some others seem to view logic as an impedement to the final acknowledgment of 'The Truth' that has evaded everyone except those whose mind has been stretched to the point of breaking and beyond. The rest, like 1234567890, lack either the skills and/or the desire to debate the issues discussed here with cogent arguments in a civilized manner.

I have neither Tom van Flandern's patience nor his incentive to enlighten the nominally educated as to the many deficiencies of their fallacious reasoning. Neither will I suffer incoherent ramblings of the nominally sane. Instead I will do the only thing that I can short of not participating at all - ignore those who are clearly and irrevocably impervious to reason and hope that others who feel the same follow suit.


JR

jrich

I love how you bring them down to raise your own stature.
I could be wrong here, but 1234567890 might be female.
You would be right to ignore this thread, but here ya are.

You have no patience?
No incentive to enlighten?
I fail to see logic in this.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />When I was in school we always had to show our work. One did not even get credit for the correct answer unless one could demonstrate the correct reasoning by which the solution was attained. Its obvious that 1234567890 never had to show his work or he was uniformly unsuccessful in his attempts.

Its ironic, but not surprising, that a topic that started out discussing formal logic and the role of induction and deduction in the scientific method has degenerated into a dialog half devoid of either. There are only a few participants in this MB who make any effort to explain their reasoning. Some others seem to view logic as an impedement to the final acknowledgment of 'The Truth' that has evaded everyone except those whose mind has been stretched to the point of breaking and beyond. The rest, like 1234567890, lack either the skills and/or the desire to debate the issues discussed here with cogent arguments in a civilized manner.

I have neither Tom van Flandern's patience nor his incentive to enlighten the nominally educated as to the many deficiencies of their fallacious reasoning. Neither will I suffer incoherent ramblings of the nominally sane. Instead I will do the only thing that I can short of not participating at all - ignore those who are clearly and irrevocably impervious to reason and hope that others who feel the same follow suit.


JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You are the one who started being rude, I am only following your example. My reference to infinite divisibility leading to an universe that is completely occupied by matter from the infinitely large to the infinitesimal comes straight from Dr. Flandern's Meta Model, so if you have problems with it, you should take it up with him. And you are the one who has provided no physical examples to support your arguments even though that was the whole focus of our discussion. Talk about incoherent ramblings. All you ever talked about were those two imaginary spheres. Right, you are going to prove a fundamental property of our universe using two imaginary spheres- no experiments or nothing.

You can always tell who's losing a debate when they start attacking the education or intelligence of their opponents in lieu of a well-reasoned rebuttal.


1234567890

nderosa,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A good and proper deduction can be either, depending on whether the premises on which it is based are factually true or not, and if the logical process is valid.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'd like to point out that starting from two different assumptions, it is perfectly possible to arrive at the same conlusion through consistent reasoning, i.e., both logical processes are valid.

For example, moving clocks run slow according to SR. This conclusion is based on relative velocity arguments. However, we arrive at the same conclusion if we assume the existence of a local ambient background through which light propagates.

Suppose we have two mirrors separated by a fixed distance "L" and at rest with respect to a local ambient light medium. The time for a photon to "bounce" from the left mirror to the right mirror and back again is simply:

t0 = 2*L/c.

Now we give the two mirrors a relative velocity "v" to the right with respect to the same local light medium whilst maintaining the fixed distance "L" between the two mirrors. In this case, the time "t" for a photon to bounce from the left to the right and back again is:

t = L/(c-v) + L/(c+v)
= 2*L*c*(1/(c^2 - v^2))
= (2*L/c)*(c^2)*(1/(c^2-v^2))
= t0 *(1/(1-v^2/c^2))
=&gt; t0 for 0 &lt;= v &lt; c

Therefore, the ticking rate of the photon slows down when the mirrors are in motion. We conclude that clock slowing occurs.

Quite fascinating. The conclusion that moving clocks run slow can be obtained from both the relative and absolute motion assumption. It remains to be proven which assumption is factually true ...

DISCLAIMER: The example was taken from Prof. Umberto Bartocci

To All,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[123] You are the one who started being rude ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant. You (everyone) should always focus on the idea being discussed, regardless of what the other guy does.

Others will notice that you are playing by the rules where the other guy isn't. You will rise in stature (as judged by the observers) and he will fall.

===

It is especially important to avoid returning an insult if you end up hoisting yourself on your own petard when you try. For example ...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[123] You can always tell who's losing a debate when they start attacking the education or intelligence of their opponents in lieu of a well-reasoned rebuttal.

You couldn't shine my shoes with your jr college diploma.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

By the meter stick he just defined, 123 here measures himself to be the looser with that closing comment.


I had a good laugh,
LB



Note to JR - My only real objection to what you said are the explicit references to 123. Remove them and I don't see an insult. (So, please don't do that again.) The remainder strikes me as being reasonably reasonable. My conclusions are similar.

Yeah, I know. I skate awfully close to that line sometimes (after all, some of the - people - that post here have earned an insult or two). But I try like hell to not cross it.

Just to clarify, I don't mean to disparage anyone who is here to genuinely advocate particular ideas. However, to be an effective advocate requires varying amounts of skill and knowledge depending on the subject, the discipline to follow threads of reasoning whether they advance your idea or not, and the willingness to treat those with whom you disagree with respect. The second requirement is related to the third in my mind and this is the source of most of the friction that I encounter here. Several regular participants are perfectly respectful up to the point that their ideas are seriously questioned. They demonstrate their disrepect by ignoring pertinent questions posed by those who wish to explore their ideas. The cause in such cases, whether ignorance, arrogance, or contempt, is sometimes hard to discern. I'm willing to give a considerable amount of slack to those who I believe are acting out of ignorance and explain to them why I am asking certain questions and even assist them in formulating their answers, but once I see evidence to the contrary I have no qualms about telling them what I think of their practices. In my opinion this willful behaviour, though less obvious, is tantamount to the ad hominem attacks that we all condemn.


JR