Logic & Science

“Reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do. More precisely, it is assessing the authenticity, accuracy, and/or worth of knowledge claims and arguments. It requires careful, precise, persistent and objective analysis of any knowledge claim or belief to judge its validity and/or worth.” Source: definition of critical thinking

The practice of critical thinking sets out to assess the validity of premises, logic of arguments, and reliability of conclusions. In practice, discerning the truth of an argument is not always a simple task. Core Concepts in Critical Thinking Introduction to Statements or Claims

An argument is a set of statements. The premises – facts or propositions – are intended to provide support for the conclusion. The conclusion is asserted to be true on the basis of the premises. If an argument is cogent, then a true conclusion follows logically from true premises.

Logic can be symbolic or informal. Symbolic logic examines the precise symbolic representation of logical concepts, the abstract relationships between these concepts, and the systematization of these relationships. Informal logic involves the application of logical principles to assessment the types of informal arguments and claims that we encounter in daily life. Propositional logic is a branch of symbolic logic dealing with propositions as units and with their combinations and the connectives that relate them – if, then compound statements. Propositional Logic Terms and Symbols Proposition evaluator. Categorical logic and categorical syllogisms are more concrete than is propositional logic – some, all, and/not. Venn diagram evaluator.

An understanding of Fallacies of Logic – recognized structural errors in argumentation – provides a shortcut to assessing the cogency of an argument. We most often encounter prepositional arguments in daily life, while the logic of science, and of mathematics in particular, is more often categorical. In special cases such as the behavior of gases, at different temperatures, and under pressure, the “problem of induction” can be disregarded and predictive equations are termed Laws (The Gas Laws).

Scientific predictions, however, represent a subset of experimentation and are propositional – if this hypothesis is correct, then we will observe such and such a phenomenon. Failure to observe the predicted phenomenon might be taken to disprove the hypothesis. However, the failure might be a result of experimental or observational error, or might result from faulty predictions based upon a reasonable hypothesis. Alternatively, the hypothesis may be incorrect, but the predicted phenomenon is observed because of a mechanism not yet hypothetically considered.

For these reasons peer-reviewed scientific papers include analyses of current thinking, descriptions of methods, and statements of results so that other researchers might attempt replication. In science, unlike the case for mathematics, proof is not possible, while disproof – falsification – is possible. For this reason, hypotheses to be experimentally tested are ideally framed in such a way that they may be disproved – falsifiable hypotheses. When an empirically based, logical hypothesis, which has not been disproved after repeated testing, is deemed satisfactory by consensus within the scientific community, then the hypothesis graduates to the status of Theory (capitalized to differentiate the scientific term from its vernacular usage). In practice, much of science proceeds upon positive results – repeated observations of a phenomenon under particular conditions. In the softer sciences, such as the social sciences, statistical analyses of results play an important role. Some sciences, such as paleontology are by their nature outside the possibility of experimentation – we cannot resurrect dinosaurs or recreate meteor impacts – and must proceed on the basis of accumulated empirical evidence.

Answers to Creationist Nonsense

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense -- Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up: "Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as 'intelligent design' to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. "

Comment: In this Scientific American article, the author contends that evolutionists ought to counter creationist claims with scientific facts. While this is good advice, many creationists simply refuse to acknowldge the empirical evidence provided by science. I contend that evolutionists can also specifically refute the illogical arguments of creationists and id-ists by calling attention to the glaring fallacies of logic inherent in those arguments.

See Fallacies of Logic.

Ignorance in the White House

Yes, I refer to Giorgio W. Borgia, Idiot-in-Chief who endorsed "teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools".

Ahem, might I point out that there are no alternatives to evolution ... biological evolution is a fact. How can there be alternatives to facts? Nonfacts?

Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Debate is the key word in that statement. Debate falls under the aegis of philosophy, yet debate has little merit and ought to be abandoned when one side of the debate is clearly superior in terms of empirical facts and logic.

Almost four hundred years ago, Francis Bacon promoted empiricism and scientific induction. Science, which derives from the Latin root for knowledge, has long-since supplanted metaphysical philosophy for those who seek to comprehend the physical world. Scientific debate is a process directed toward better understanding of empirical facts.

As I have argued elsewhere, so-called "intelligent design" theory could be utilized as an exercise in philosophy classes. It is not science, it is not scientific, it is religion, it offers NO viable alternative explanation for the observable fact of biological evolution.

Why would Bush endorse an anti-science policy for public education? One can only assume that he is pandering to the conservative voters.

There are abundant reasons to consider Bush a fool who cares nothing for truth. This policy is yet another example. That Bush has blundered into a job far beyond his intellectual capabilities is testament to the problems inherent in the democratic process (voters) and to rigged elections. That Bush is allowed to remain in office despite uncovery of lies designed to instigate invasion of Iraq, when Clinton was impeached over a mere sexual peccadillo, is evidence of the intellectual malaise that has overtaken the US.

The Constitution insists upon separation of Church and State. Is Bush too dense to realize that his declared policy of putting ID theory into science classrooms is in violation of the Constitution? Does Bush not care to uphold the Constitution? Does Bush believe that most voters care nothing for the Constitution? Perhaps Bush knows that conservative voters do not know the difference between fact and fantasy. After all, some deluded souls voted for him.

Purpose

The author of this site is an atheistic evolutionist.

However, the intent of this site is not an attack on religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are personal and provide much emotional comfort. Those who carry such beliefs to extremes often cause distress to others, but extremism reflects human failings and is not the fault of religious beliefs as such.

The intent of this site is to employ creationist and idist* arguments to illustrate fallacies of logic.

Most creationists who debate on the Internet (including proids) are not interested in learning science, rather they are typically interested only in attacking specific areas of science, presumably in the illogical belief that this could prove their cherished beliefs correct. Most proids* display very little knowledge of science and are merely following the fallacious arguments of other apologists. Creationists and idists typically misrepresent the facts of science, employing fallacious straw man arguments in an attempt to diminish the strength of scientific evidence.