I've been thinking over this particular post from that other thread

Rumraket wrote:

Reeve wrote: My contention is that we can know what reality is.

How would you know, that you know you've discovered what reality is, if you can't test your claim observationally or experimentally?

Isn't it immediately obvious that you can't? Either you concede that the best you can hope for is observational and experimental tests that give useful approximations, or you submit to wishful thinking.

All you'll ever be able to do, without science, is evaluate internal logical consistency. It's not going to get any better than that, ever. The rest is fantasy, or at least, you'll never be able to confirm whether it's fantasy or "reality". You'll just be latching on to something you like, because it "makes sense" to you.

Get over it.

The point Rumraket is making here is that empirical evidence (i.e. actual observation) is the final arbiter for deciding the approximate truth of something. In other words, it doesn't matter whether you have a valid and sound logical argument that, in theory, gives true conclusions. If you don't get empirical evidence then those conclusions are irrelevant.

I'm not 100% certain of that though, doesn't, for example, maths rely entirely only on formal logical argument And acknowledging that does that not lead us to a problem because science esp. physics often uses mathematical concepts in its explanations.

I'm thinking, as an example, of the imaginary number. Of course there's no empirical evidence for the number i. Yet physicists need to make use of that number in the formalism of quantum mechanics!!

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN!!!

Reeve wrote:
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN!!!

Oh, like this question (the OP vs.) has never been asked before in this context. The reason that people ask you to do some research first is so that you don't waste people's time asking them to explain to you the reinvention of the wheel.

In computing circles, this used to be phrased "RTFM". You're asking people to do your homework for you. Good luck on your first year in college.

No, I'm actually arguing that logical argument can be used to determine truth; since maths is so successful and useful in science.

...For now anyway. I might be wrong

I'm not a huge fan of drawing conclusions and then thinking, but hey ...

So you don't understand how falsifying a hypothesis works then?

Reeve wrote:So you don't understand how falsifying a hypothesis works then?

An hypothesis is inferred, not assumed.

I have inferred this one. See above.

Reeve wrote:No, I'm actually arguing that logical argument can be used to determine truth; since maths is so successful and useful in science.

...For now anyway. I might be wrong

Yes, well, you're defining 'truth' as 'functionality'. I'd just use the word 'functionality'.

Don't mind me. Teachers are optimistic and only hope their students can actually become functional.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach wood shop.

Those who cannot learn in wood shop cut their own arms off.

Reeve wrote:I have inferred this one. See above.

You must assume something to argue for it, but as it happens testing requires nothing of the sort.

I've assumed the truth of the hypothesis which I've inferred.

I call that "doing it wrong," but at least you keep an open mind.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Reeve wrote:No, I'm actually arguing that logical argument can be used to determine truth; since maths is so successful and useful in science.

...For now anyway. I might be wrong

Yes, well, you're defining 'truth' as 'functionality'. I'd just use the word 'functionality'.

Don't mind me. Teachers are optimistic and only hope their students can actually become functional.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach wood shop.

Those who cannot learn in wood shop cut their own arms off.

I think you should write books Cito. That way, the unwashed masses would be able to benefit from your never-ending wisdom. I can't help but feel that you're wasting your talents just posting here on RatSkep.

Kazaman wrote:I call that "doing it wrong," but at least you keep an open mind.

Don't worry the assumption may well be temporary. Besides it's not like we're doing hard science here. This is the philosophy forums - a place Cito seems fond of - where things are more relaxed.

'Brother', call me if you need me.

Reeve wrote:I can't help but feel that you're wasting your talents just posting here on RatSkep.

I'm only imprisoning myself here to keep profits out of the hands of publishers.

Here's another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Excepti ... Everything

One proposed ToE which describes fundemental interactions as Lie groups. Lie groups of course being purely mathematical things; constructed based ultimately on abstract logical reasoning. Again nothing empirical about that, you can't experience Lie groups.

So what are we supposed to take away from this? To quote Stephen Hawking: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

Reeve wrote:Here's another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Excepti ... Everything

One proposed ToE which describes fundemental interactions as Lie groups. Lie groups of course being purely mathematical things; constructed based ultimately on abstract logical reasoning. Again nothing empirical about that, you can't experience Lie groups.

So what are we supposed to take away from this? To quote Stephen Hawking: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

I agree with you. Mathematics is where we will crack the issue of ToE among other things. Empirical evidence is for verifification and falsification. All this quibbling and hand waving about real science if for the puffed hens of academia. I simply don't care about their issues in my incessant speculation.

I never thought of logical argument and empirical knowledge as being in opposition to each other. Rather, they should complement each other in helping generate a useful scientific hypothesis. In fact, if they seem to stand in contradiction, there is probably an error somewhere, in one or other.