Interesting article in Science

[chickened]

What the government is doing to business in America is known as "pimping".

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
I can't help but think you are making a joke to divert from the fact your logic is backed into a real corner. I agree with you about airliners and gas and all that.. but the fact that our planet is consuming oil at a rate way higher than the planet can produce it is a very real event, and while technology now may not be feasible... who knows what capabilities we will have in ten years and beyond.


Your post shows you don't understand what "logic" is -- it's not scientific experimentation or research, but simply a mathematical approach to "if...then.." types of statements. When something isn't logical, it's often because the argument falls into one of the many logical fallacies -- basically, something must be true because of something else, when that explanation is not always so.

For example, the logical fallacy "argument from incredulity" goes like this -- "I can't imagine how it could work that way, therefore it didn't." Well, if you can find examples of something unimaginable by one person still working, then that argument no longer carries logical validity. Another way to look at it is when you make rules that fit in one situation but contradict yourself by going against the rules for another, and still claiming both sides of the contradiction to be always true.

For example, the colloquialisms "birds of a feather flock together" and "opposites attract" cannot both be absolutely always true, and that being the case, neither is a valid proof of something else being true based on the presumption that either is always true.

Another common logic example utilizes nonsense categories, with a series of statements that describe the relationships of these categories, and trying to determine whether another relationship is true within that context. "If all quarkles are bindiggles, and all bindiggles are horties, and all vimps are horties, then is it true that...."

Learning about logic allows a person to apply mathematics to an argument, and efficiently disprove something as "always being so" if it doesn't fit. And it works.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

I can guarantee that one word we wouldn't have in our vocabulary is Boondoggle.

I don't believe that one is in my vocabulary or will be added to it. X)

what is logical about a little old lady who smokes 3 packs a day with clean lungs?

That nicotine has psychoactive effects in mammals, and has dependence forming properties. Marketing uses psychology to increase initial users, and to make sure a social aspect exists.

Etc.​

 

[chickened]

Well dumb me I always thought logic meant that when something is done over and over again like say an experiment and has identical outcomes then it becomes logical in the sense that you mix A with B and you get C always. The opposite would be speculation or illogical because you would not be able to account for the many possible outcomes. Science says that smoking causes cancer but someone comes along and smokes like a chimney and has no ill effects from it so I would say that saying smoking causes cancer is illogical a better statement would be smoking MAY cause cancer- logical pertaining to the statements. yes/no?

Just because one can find a flaw in an argument does not always mean the facts are wrong, sometimes facts are misrepresented, unreliable or unavailable which the latter is usually the case especially pertaining to human behavior and sometimes science, in short we don't always know everything because most people operate out of fear and that causes them to do illogical things.
Quote:

Your post shows you don't understand what "logic" is -- it's not scientific experimentation or research, but simply a mathematical approach to "if...then.." types of statements. When something isn't logical, it's often because the argument falls into one of the many logical fallacies -- basically, something must be true because of something else, when that explanation is not always so.

For example, the logical fallacy "argument from incredulity" goes like this -- "I can't imagine how it could work that way, therefore it didn't." Well, if you can find examples of something unimaginable by one person still working, then that argument no longer carries logical validity. Another way to look at it is when you make rules that fit in one situation but contradict yourself by going against the rules for another, and still claiming both sides of the contradiction to be always true.

For example, the colloquialisms "birds of a feather flock together" and "opposites attract" cannot both be absolutely always true, and that being the case, neither is a valid proof of something else being true based on the presumption that either is always true.

Another common logic example utilizes nonsense categories, with a series of statements that describe the relationships of these categories, and trying to determine whether another relationship is true within that context. "If all quarkles are bindiggles, and all bindiggles are horties, and all vimps are horties, then is it true that...."

Learning about logic allows a person to apply mathematics to an argument, and efficiently disprove something as "always being so" if it doesn't fit. And it works.

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
mmmm.....No. Logic follows a defined series of steps with defined parameters. If A and B are a defined substance, then yes, logically you would get C. Biological science, however, does not have defined parameters. And science does not say that smoking causes cancer. Science will tell you that people who smoke are more likely to be diagnosed with lung ailments such as emphysema or cancer. Science will define that damage done to lung ephithelia, the sequelae of which may lead to cancer. Science will even tell you what parts of the smoke you inhale are likely to lead to specific kinds of damage. Science has never said that smoking causes cancer, and never will, because that's not how science works.

 

[chickened]

that may be the only logical thing but I was referring to the defiance of the science that says smoking causes cancer if it were true or logical in its conclusions we all would have cancer if we smoke. My whole point was when you put your trust in a system of everything must be logical to be truth you are buying into a erroneous system, you must allow for those things that are unexplainable.

what is logical about a little old lady who smokes 3 packs a day with clean lungs?

That nicotine has psychoactive effects in mammals, and has dependence forming properties. Marketing uses psychology to increase initial users, and to make sure a social aspect exists.

Etc.​

 

[chickened]

They better take down all the signs in the schools then because that is exactly what they are saying and teaching our children.

Then biological science would be better served to be called theoretical biology then.
Quote:
mmmm.....No. Logic follows a defined series of steps with defined parameters. If A and B are a defined substance, then yes, logically you would get C. Biological science, however, does not have defined parameters. And science does not say that smoking causes cancer. Science will tell you that people who smoke are more likely to be diagnosed with lung ailments such as emphysema or cancer. Science will define that damage done to lung ephithelia, the sequelae of which may lead to cancer. Science will even tell you what parts of the smoke you inhale are likely to lead to specific kinds of damage. Science has never said that smoking causes cancer, and never will, because that's not how science works.

 

[welsummerchicks]

Scientific Method is a whole set of procedures and methods. These methods are designed to help us learn accurately about our world by designing good experiments.

Logic is used in most intellectual activities. There are many different areas of logic you can study - Formal, Informal, Symbolic, Mathematical. Each one takes n a slightly different aspect of Logic.

Logic is a way of forming one idea from another. Logic provides us with rules for forming one idea from another.

Logic however, is indeed a part of Scientific Method.

For example, say I do an experiment on heart health on six people over the age of 65. And say I get a given result. All six have no clogged arteries, low blood pressure, low heart rates and no sign of heart disease. My people are all very unusual - slim marathon runners who have competed at the Olympic level in endurance sports since they were 18, with no heart disease in their ancestors 3 generations back. Logic helps me to understand why my six people do not represent all people over 65.

Similarly a study often will involve simply noticing a connection between two things, but it might not prove that the two are connected or dependent on each other. Further experimentation may be necessary to actually find out what the relationship actually is. It's important to understand what kind of study we are really looking at. Many studies are only meant to point up a possible connection, and serve as a basis for more research.

As an example, it was found that people who took more of a certain vitamin had a certain disease more often. However, the study did not show why that was, or even, if the two had any relationship at all. But the study was ONLY designed to point out associations, it was not designed to find causes. It will take more studies to examine if the two things are related. It's also possible that those who take the vitamins have other habits that make them more at risk for the disease. They may even take the vitamins because they already do not feel well.

Many people were very excited when the 'Retts Syndrome Gene' was found. However, more research brought out many questions. It seemed that some children had the gene but did not have Rett's Syndrome. Was our gene idea totally off? No, but it turned out the gene's action was far more complicated than anyone had first imagined.

Many people were disappointed when researchers could not find a 'schizophrenia gene'. Further, they pointed out, how could this disease occur so infrequently in children of schizophrenics, how could it be genetic when identical twins don't always both get it? But several very big logic mistakes were made there. The answers blew away our ideas about identical twins, about single genes causing complex diseases that involve many different deficits, many other things.

Often our discovery in one study doesn't make sense until many more studies are done. It may take years for new results to highlight our logic flaws. Often we don't realize we have made a logic error until we get more information.

Of course there are other sorts of logic. There are 'logical operators' in computers - very much like the 'operators' plus, minus and divide. I can apply a computer's logical operators to pairs of numbers or even large sets of numbers.

It is actually very challenging to design a good experiment. One has to be very careful that the method is really showing exactly and only what we want it to show. Most big research studies spend years going through multiple reviews and very thorough criticism. I was involved in a very large multi-center international study. It was incredibly fascinating to see how these large studies are planned, organized and carried out. Every thing is very carefully examined to see if any flawed assumption or idea has crept in.

Logic really DOES help us to carry out good scientificmethod-based studies.

However, scientific method isn't just a way of forming one idea from another.

Scientific method tells us how to actually organize and carry out an experiment - how to design it, etc.

Many people make assumptions that are not 'logical'. The assumptions don't follow those rules about how to form one idea from another.

However, logic is not infallible and logic doesn't always work out to be the best way to proceed in all problems.

In scientific discovery, new discoveries often come out of people suddenly imagining a completely new way to do something. OFten there is very little 'logic' to these discoveries. There has been a great deal of effort made to try and discover how people come up with completely new, innovative ideas. That is not yet well understood, but putting people together from different areas of study seems to be a necessary ingredient. I feel that much of new discoveries occurs outside of the rules of logic.

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
Theoretical science would imply putting nothing into practice, however advances in medicine belie this assumption.

Based on all available evidence, smoking CAN cause cancer. That's not the same as saying it DOES. They are very different statements, although the uneducated reader could easily misinterpret them. A cut CAN cause a scar, but it doesn't always.

 

[chickened]

Very well said.

Quote: