Is logic a science?

[Boojatta]

Poll question: Is logic a science?

[stray cat]

1. Logic in humans should be required to take anyone seriously

including science.

[Towlie]

37. Next question: Is a poll on this question logical?

[ananda]

2. If logic is a science..

.. that could explain the complete lack of reason
in so many fringers.

cute logic smiley here

[Gman]

3. Logic is not a science but rather

science is based in logic. A science grows and progresses as new knowledge becomes known by applying logic. The rules of logic are set and do not change.

[Boojatta]

5. "The rules of logic are set and do not change."

It seems that the laws of nature don't change. However, theories of physics are revised.

How much do human beings know about these things that you refer to as "the rules of logic"?

[Gman]

7. Theories of physics are revised as new knowledge is obtained

and old theories are proven wrong. Galileo used logic to disprove geocentricism. The rules of logic did not change. Logic was used to change how we view the universe.

How much do we know about the rules of logic? In our particular space and time continuum, I think we know everything there is to know under our particular set of circumstances here.

[Ready4Change]

4. None of the above: Logic is a tool.

And like any tool, it can be used, or misused, for multiple purposes.

[Boojatta]

6. Is it possible for the tool that is logic to be modified to have much more functionality or power?

[Ready4Change]

9. No.

Logic delivers an answer in the form of Yes, No or Maybe. If you try to give it more function you change it into something else. (Trying to get varying degrees of 'maybe' turns logic into statistics, for example.)

And it has little inherent power. However it may be applied to powerful questions, in which case it's answers may have powerful results. But the power stems from the question, not from the tool used to get an answer.

Finally, it must be kept in mind that there are some questions to which it cannot (or should not) be applied. 'Do I love donuts' is ok. 'How much do I love coffee' is not ok.

[Bucky]

8. Keep in mind that in its origin, science itself is only a branch of philosophy

Originally called "natural philosophy". Logic is also a branch of philosophy, so it's a cousin to science.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Pure bullshit.

[Bucky]

11. You must have me confused with someone who pissed in your coffee

Science started out as "natural philosophy." The word science didn't even exist in its current usage until the 18th Century.

If you want to argue that the history of it doesn't matter, fine. I'd probably agree with you. I was only offering some harmless context. If you're just in the mood for being ill mannered, you might find more compatriots in GD:P.

[BlooInBloo]

13. "Keep in mind that in its origin, science itself is only a branch of philosophy"..

Pure, 100% unmitigated bullshit.

EDIT: Since you clearly know nothing about what you're talking about, here's the essence of the reason why what you said is pure, 100% unmitigated bullshit.

Q: If we agreed to call a "tail" a "leg", how many legs would a horse have?
A: 4. Because you can't change the number of legs horses have by changing the language.

[Orrex]

18. Is changing a leg to a tail a science?

[Chemisse]

19. Are you completely unaware of the history of science?

Calling it a philosophy is a very old term. Calling it science is what changed the language.

[Chemisse]

20. I LOVE that expression!

I must find a way to use that line on somebody, sometime during the course of the day tomorrow.

[billh58]

12. Science deals

with a systematic search for facts with a goal of increasing mankind's knowledge, while logic is a tool employed in that search, and is thought to have its origins in Aristotle's application of a single branch of philosophy that deals with "reasoning." And, you are correct about the origins of science from the field of "natural philosophy":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

There was always, however, a distinction made between the physical, and the metaphysical. The word "science" is derived from scientia in Latin, which means "knowledge."

Logic is generally defined as the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Philosophy is a much broader field, and is defined as the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Theoretical science arrives at its methods through the application of disciplined logic, and its morality through the teachings of philosophy. Applied science retains the use of logic, but has little need for philosophy.

[Igel]

14. I voted "no".

Here's my take on it:

Science has a set of heuristics: observe data, go through abductive reasoning for formulate a hypothesis that, ideally, can make a prediction about further data; collect and observe more data, whether from what's predicted or not; compare the additional data to the hypothesis. Along the way you use logic to make sure the hypothesis is consistent, that nothing's left out and that nothing's unnecessarily put in. Logic is a constraint on arguments and a way of saying whether an argument is true or false, and a danged nifty tool for finding error.

But logic isn't a science, except in the etymological sense (it's certainly a kind of scientia). I can't imagine a set of observations that could cause me to reconsider some bit of logic, formulate a hypothesis to "correct" the logical system *as such*, and then test the revised system. If I were to revise it, it would fail to work as it has. It would be something different, not simply logic amended.

It's like mathematics. It's a set of axioms and operations. While I'm fairly sure I couldn't come up with alternative logics, I have a suspicion that we have the logic that we do because it is internally consistent and it works with science. I don't see why it needs to be the only possible set of axioms and operators, but that's not saying that I think there are alternative sets of axioms and operators that are internally consistent, much less find some application (as though that were important). It's the same with mathematics and geometry: For a long time the standard four arithmetic operators and the set of real numbers was sufficient for science, for dealing with reality. Not only was it adequate, it was necessary. It was only later that alternative mathematics and geometries started to be advanced, and a bit longer before they were found useful in areas where the formerly sole mathematics failed.

It may well be that alternative logics would fail to be internally consistent and are impossible. I'm a linguist by training, not a mathematician. I've had basic logic, I've had a semester of formal semantics, I've had a bit of math, but I'm still a linguist. That's not irrelevant info.

One problem I've run across is that formal semantics, based in traditional kinds of first order logic, fails to describe language at all adequately. Yeah, you can capture some nifty generalizations, but there are honking big ones that the logic not only doesn't capture, but hints are impossible. Yet every native speaker of pretty much every natural language performs those "logical" operations daily, and consistently. Moreover, there are operations logic says should be attested, but which no language known in the literature as of 1996 displayed. Second order semantics apparently also fails to handle at least tense and aspect adequately. I killed a couple of afternoons one term watching a visiting German logician explain to a group of semanticians why his approach using higher order logic to account for tense and aspect data was promising--the local guys argued that second order logic handled a lot of the data, but the logician squashed them with a litany of unresolved problems, then proceded to show how first and second order logic, in turn, each failed to account for the data and in some cases inevitably denied the data was possible. This is bad, even in linguistics, and even though we all say language has its own odd "logic" semanticists keep on trying. Since I failed to understand pretty much everything he said about second order logic, well, I didn't attend the lectures in which he developed his ideas.

At the end the German still hadn't cracked the problem--no surprise there--and the local guys were unconvinced he was even on the right track. It may be that we lacked the right semantic types for the operators to work on, and he simply failed to produce them. It might be that the set of operators was impoverished. It might be that traditional logic, devised to deal with the physical world, is a poor fit to human language, where we make all kinds of odd assumptions and connections that simply aren't quite "real". Dunno. I'm not a semanticist, BTW, and haven't seriously thought about semantics since, oh, 2003 (and that wasn't really formal stuff).

Rather than say that logic as a system is broken and needs to be fixed to account for notions of relevance and coherence in discourse pragmatics, not to mention tense and aspect--which is precisely the kind of thing I'd say in a chem lab if some "theory" suddenly failed to account for my data--it strikes me that perhaps it's like trying to apply real numbers to the problems in electrical engineering and fluid dynamics that formed some of the complex analysis problems I had to solve. Then again, what do I know?

Gotta do some work. Later.

[bananas]

15. In mathematics, there are lots of alternative logics.

[Viking12]

16. Science and logic are both systems for the creation and maipulation of symbols

Two distinct systems, however. Both systems have come to be valued for their consistency and utility.

[Boojatta]

17. Kick

[DemBones DemBones]

21. My logic professor should have worn a white lab coat

because he always leaned back against the chalk rail when facing the class and his suits got covered in chalk dust. He had his doctorate from Princeton when he was 23, though, which kind of excuses it, maybe even explains it.

[Boojatta]

22. Kick

[Avalux]

23. Logic is a component of science; without it science could not exist.

Scientific theories, hypotheses - could not be put forth without logic.

[Boojatta]

24. Without language, could science exist?

Is logic itself a science? We could imagine that it's a non-scientific prerequisite for science.

A completely different question: is the study of logic a science?

Perhaps one could make an analogy: language is to linguistics as logic is to ...?

[Boojatta]

25. Kick

[Kip Humphrey]

26. Maybe yes and no... or none of the above.

[luxoid]

27. Maybe

If logic and lets say mathematics produce hypotheses concerning numbers and logical statements,and these hypotheses are empirically testable in some way then they are both sciences.It's that simple.Empiricism is not necessarily needed as refutation can be done by implementation of the relevant mathematics or counter argument.traditionally neither have been judged to be sciences,at least not in the UK but both are essential components of any science and without either science would be impossible.

[Boojatta]

28. Welcome to DU, luxoid!

:toast:

[saras]

29. Half math, half philosophy

Part of logic is a subset of mathematics. Another part of logic as a discipline is the philosophical discussion of where in life logic can be applied and how. Maybe logic, like physics, has a theoretical and an experimental part.

[Jim__]

30. Math is (largely) derived from logic.

That's the point of Russell's Principia Mathematica and Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic.

[dimbear]

32. This is the point where the worm ouroboros comes in........

since logic is a subset of mathematics.

That answers the OP's question, tho. Logic is part of math, math is the queen of the sciences, ergo logic is part of a science.

[Boojatta]

36. This isn't intended as an accusation, but I get the impression that you

are thinking of administrative divisions in currently existing institutions of formal education. If my impression is correct, then your answer may become obsolete in the future.

[Boojatta]

31. Kick

[slackmaster]

33. Different forms of logic form components of various sciences

The logic studied in the context of epistemology doesn't work the same way as the logic used in mathematics.

[Boojatta]

34. Kick

[CHIMO]

35. I

Think. Therefore I am.

To be.

How do you solve this?

Logic? Science?

Metaphysics!

[ElboRuum]

38. Logic is math.

It serves as the basis of all science.

[Boojatta]

39. "Logic is math" is a strange statement.

To maintain a statement like that in the face of indications that it is false, you would probably be forced to assign a non-standard meaning to at least one of the two concepts. I'm wondering whether you would give non-standard meanings to both. If not, which would maintain its ordinary meaning?

Do you really not make any distinction between the concept of validity and the concept of truth?

Consider the following:

Seven is an odd number.
All odd numbers are prime.
Therefore, seven is prime.

The conclusion is true, and the reasoning is valid, but one of the assumptions is false. That's an example of what is called "unsound" reasoning. It's valid, but unsound.

For simplicity, I used numbers, and numbers are usually classified as mathematical concepts. However, I could have provided an argument that doesn't involve numbers. For example:

If you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, then you are stupid.
Doctor Strangelove can't walk.
Therefore, Doctor Strangelove can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
Therefore, Doctor Strangelove is stupid.

[Boojatta]

40. Kick