But you are still ignoring the facts that hundreds of philosophies don’t use rational reasoning or logic.
No conclusion can be drawn without logical ground. Logic is the necessary reference at the very top of any rational process. No idea or meaning can stand without a logical ground to support it.
You’re making an empty claim, but I wouldn’t entertain getting sidetracked with an irrelevant discussion beyond the point made in #5224.
Again, the specific point of my post #5224 was the relationship between philosophy and the scientific method. Do you understand the relationship?
A relevant response should demonstrate your specific agreement/disagreement with any specific part of my post not merely some irrelevant empty claims.
Let's keep it simple. Whether the concern is the scientific method or any rational process of any kind, no conclusion can be drawn without a logical ground defined through philosophy. Do you disagree?
Most philosophies are related to how one should behave or how ones should live their lives...hence most of them have to do with cultural or social philosophies. And here, it goes beyond being rational or logical, WHICH ARE REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO STUDY OF NATURE.
It’s another empty claim. Did you hear about natural philosophy? Do you know that the famous “Principia” by Isaac Newton that explains the laws of motion/gravitation that is still used today was titled “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”? Do you know that the concept of science was born from the original concept of natural philosophy?
If you really think that philosophy goes beyond being rational or logical, and “REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO STUDY OF NATURE”, then you really don’t understand what philosophy is but I’m not here to argue about philosophy?
Didn’t I already explain to you in #5224 that no, philosophy doesn’t explain the anatomy of brown bear and also explained that my point is specifically the relationship between philosophy and the scientific method? Do you understand? Why do you continue making confused irrelevant statements?
Only a fraction of the philosophies involved pure logic and reasoning, and even then, these are not always compatible with Natural Sciences.
Again, you don’t understand what philosophy is and it's not my concern to argue about philosophy.
Sure, scientists needs to be rational, logical, analytical, methodological, and so on, and it is a good thing to have does qualities, but even then physical evidence take precedence over anyone’s logic & reasoning.
You still don’t understand the essential role of logic in the process of establishing evidence.
As explained multiple times (see#2164 & #5224), the process to establish data as evidence with or against a theory is not possible without a philosophical ground to serve as the defining reference to validate the rationale behind the conclusions.
Logic is not merely a “good thing to have”; it’s an essential/integral aspect at the very top of any rational process including the scientific method. Without logic, no conclusions of any kind are possible.
Reasons and logic alone, don’t make a hypothesis into science.
It’s never logic alone or data alone. The process towards drawing conclusions must have both. Logic is the necessary reference to allow for the assessment of data.
In your mind, you see a false barrier between philosophy/logic and science as two separate or contradicting entities. You don’t understand the relationship/overlap.
At the very root, either philosophy or science is a process that is essentially dependent on two fundamental components:
A) Data Input (through sense perception).
B) Rational/Logical assessment of the data (through the power of the human mind).
At a fundamental level, the process with respect to the logical assessment of input is the same but philosophy involves a higher level of rational/logical assessment of the “macro” input towards the understanding of fundamental truths while science has more focus on the assessment of the “micro” input which is gained through observation/experimentation.
The philosophic inquiry may have more focus on the rational power of mind yet it’s not possible to draw conclusions without the input (observations/data) while Science has more focus on the input yet it’s not possible to process the input to draw conclusions without the rational power of mind/logical principles of inference as derived from philosophy.
That said, “a hypothesis” is a product of the rational assessment of some input while “making a hypothesis into science” is a product of “further assessment of more input”. Similarly, philosophy at a different level can draw conclusions through the assessment of the “macro” input.
To give you an example:
Picture this: a scientist, known for his superior logical reasoning, starts a new hypothesis on some phenomena.
What if the person’s rationality or logic is wrong, because the evidence refute his hypothesis. Do that scientist simply ignore the evidence because of his supreme intellect?
If such scientist, then he is allowing his ego cloud his judgment, because he no longer following the requirements of Scientific Method. That’s biases, LIIA. It is bias when a scientist ignore evidence that counter the hypothesis.
I seriously don’t think you understand the Scientific Method, if you think logic and reasoning alone would rule over evidence. It doesn’t.
Data are accepted as evidence through logic. It’s never data alone or logic alone and it’s never logic against data. Logic cannot draw conclusions without data and data cannot be assessed without logic. Both are two essential components of one process. Both are inseparable and there is no contradiction.
Any idea, meaning, conclusion must be derived from both logic and data. It’s never data alone or logic alone. If either component is missing, the process is not possible.
The testable evidence are, what make a hypothesis or scientific theory, “
science”.
The whole purposes of the scientific Method:
- To test the explanations & predictions of a model in the hypothesis or theory.
- To test the logic and maths (eg equations, formulas, constants, numbers, etc).
The “test” means “observation”, eg EVIDENCE, EXPERIMENTS, DATA.
It is the evidence, not the logic and reasoning that determine if the hypothesis or theory -
- true or false,
- probable or improbable,
- verified or refuted/debunked.
All reasoning and logic must be tested.
No reasoning or logic are true by-default.
I am not saying that scientists shouldn’t be logical or rational. Sure, they have to be. Logic and rationality can be helpful when developing a new hypothesis. But it evidence that objectively determine which hypothesis is scientific or not.
Yes, it’s the evidence yet evidence can very well point to a conclusion that cannot be directly observed or tested but regardless must exist.
Consider the example of dark energy, the conclusion was drawn through evidence yet the dark energy itself cannot be observed, tested and we don’t have the slightest idea about its intrinsic nature. All what we can do is infer its existence through the observation of its influence.
Philosophies, the majority of them, are just talks, they have no values if there are no evidence to support the studies of nature.
Philosophy is derived from the observations of the world. There is never a contradiction between Philosophy and the facts of nature.
Philosophy is useless in this regards.
False. Philosophy is the essential reference/ ground for any rational process. Without which the scientific method itself wouldn’t be possible. Yes, observation and experimentation are essential, but it cannot be analyzed to draw conclusions without a philosophical ground. Raw input (data) is totally meaningless without being logically processed to allow for meaningful output.
You’re under the false impression that logic may point to one direction and evidence to another; it’s a confused understanding that doesn’t even apply. Such contradiction doesn’t exist. Raw data gets processed through logic then the output (evidence) is what points to one direction or another. It’s never the logic alone or the data alone.
I never said that logic points to a different view that contradicts evidence, did I?
I said that empirical evidence of latest science proved that the theoretical framework and all central assumptions of the scientific evolutionary theory (i.e., the modern synthesis) to be false.
I said that empirical evidence points to the fact that everything in our realm is contingent including the universe in its entirety. Logic mandates an absolute entity as the ground that allows for the initiation of all contingent entities. Without such ground, no contingent entity of any kind is possible. Do you understand?
