Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tormod
Now, why would a consensus be interesting?
Science is about finding the theories that best explain what we observe, and then test them. This requires logic, but it also requires certain leaps of faith (we must assume that such and such is true). But the very fundamental concept of the scientific method disallows us from ever proving anything *final*, thus we can never really know any "truth", regardless of how well we define the limits of anything (and how do we quantify these limits in the first place?).
|
A very useful input indeed Tormod! So lets proceed further.
I tried the wikipedia for a definition of logic (encyclopedias are often a good source of definitions!)
Here's its intro
Quote:
Logic, from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy among philosophers. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments.
Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy. Since the mid-nineteenth century logic has been commonly studied in mathematics, and, even more recently, in computer science. As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialist analyses of reasoning such as probably correct reasoning and arguments involving causality
|
Evidently, logic is not the most useful tool for real science. Generally it is used for creating a false impression, that is for obfusication.
