No, syntactic formal logics (first order logic, modal logic) are capable to capture various phenomena, and in particular we can use it to write down physical theories, but it's not even clear to what extend physics can be captures in such a language
actually, it can. There are logical fallacies and biases that stem from logic. Rational thinkers often make logical mistakes. There is often a moral discretion involved in making correct decisions. The right or wrong decision could both be entirely logical. This is open to debate. People are not computers.
>>25986241 Don't be an dumbshit. Math isnt easy for nearly everyone. The people you see/know that are good at math are good because they practice it, alot. Im still shit with strong induction proofs, but i keep practicing.
>>25989910 I would argue some people don't need to practice math to be good at it, namely autists or the like.
My job "requires" a lot of math, but I really don't know it. When I am doing math in my head, it's completely non-verbal and there's no way to translate it into written or spoken words. It's more just pathways firing inside my brain that instinctively know what they are doing while I just sit back and wait for the result. I'm actually better at finding patterns and relationships in numbers than my coworkers that do have training in math, but the catch is I'm an autist and they are not.
>>25990581 I've only seen "science" employed in this perverse manner by creationists and their ilk who make baseless assertions and try to redefine concepts and twist scientific principles to fit their narrative
>>25986190 I don't think so, the way I see it comparatively we're like bacteria trying to understand the universe. We've developed far but it's pretty unrealistic to think this one organism is capable of grasping everything
>>25990413 Of course science is a belief system. If you believe nothing, it's impossible to design an experiment. Similarly, after carrying out an experiment, what lessons should be drawn from it? The answer is "peer review," but what that does is expose your results to systematic rather than individual cognitive bias. I feel like everyone in this thread at the very least needs to read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
>>25986190 No, they can explain certain aspects of the physical universe, but they cannot explain everything.
As others have said in this thread, math and the various forms of logic are all based on axioms, that is things that are assumed to be true, but that cannot be necessarily proven true.
Lets take gravity for example. We know it exists. We experience it every day. It affects things on a large scale. We incorporate it into a fair amount of equations that explain other things and we have an idea about some of its properties. Despite all this, we still can't explain what it is with our current knowledge and understanding of math and the physical sciences, its just there. You can also look at stuff like dark matter/energy and the exact way particles work (quantum mechanics is a field that is trying to explain weird phenomena that occur with subatomic particles, but those in the field can't explain why those particles are there and what drives them to do what they do).
And now moving on to the metaphysical. We know that we exist yet we cannot determine what it means to exist or what existence even is. Philosophy, heavily based on logic, attempts to explain and provides various answers, all of which are logical, but we still do not know what existence is. Also, the various forms of formal logic can be used to prove or disprove things, but they can only do this in regards to certain things, but they cannot prove their own assumptions nor what it means to reason.
>>25990849 Semantically, yes, science is a "belief system" in that it makes assertions. It is a framework and algorithm that makes generally reliable and dependable predictions about physical phenomenon and is structured in such a way that theories are only disproven. Cognitive bias is inextricable from any beliefs formulated by humans.
In reality, science and logic and reason and faith are all human abstractions that try to explain the origins and purpose of the universe.
>>25991078 Falsifiability is a dead meme, and Quine killed it. The trouble is, if you have some prediction and you run an experiment that falsifies it, is the prediction wrong because of the particular theory under scrutiny, because of the instruments or methodology or jittery hand, because of your scientific paradigm, or because of "confounds?" Where "confounds" are the creeping inadequacy of scientific methodology.
And what of predictions? They rely on the biggest scientific conceit of them all, that "all are things equal." Formulations of causation (which is what predictions are all about) either fall into "causation is a weird anthropic thing that we'll meme about for a while," or "causation is ceteris paribus." Science hews to the latter interpretation, which is why physics is okay sometimes and why economics is never okay, but it certainly blows a rather large hole in this "science will explain everything" belief.
>>25986190 No, not really anon, because behavior can be difficult to predict at the best of times because of how insanely many variables there are to account for, and unless you're privy to those variables you're fucked.
>>25991511 I never claimed that science is perfect. There are flaws in all schools of thought. It is, however, a convenient way to explain things that aren't immediately apparent with some semblance of order
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.