General > Off Topic

Basic Logic

(1/2) > >>

Numsgil:
It's come to my attention that not everyone here is familiar with basic logic.  Some have even gone so far as to rationalize their preconceptions with home grown 'logic' that suffers from logical fallacies.

Here's a primer course on logic.

Second, we should be aware of what is known as the 'Null Hypothesis'.  Here you go!.  And here you go again.

Last, understand how science works.  It does not say 'this is right'.  It says 'this sure fits all the data better than any other thing anyone's come up with (and is older than any new theories that explain the data equally well)'.

Here's how it works!

Check out the list of logic fallacies in the first link on logic I gave.  Bonus points to anyone who catches me in a logical fallacy and names it.

Numsgil:
Here's an example:

Most of zelos's arguments suffer from Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Specifically, "The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true."

PurpleYouko:
Also note that in any kind of science, the only truth is an observed fact.

(An example of an observed fact would be that a rock falls when you let go of it.)


From these observed facts we develop a hypothesis which we use to predict an outcome of a given experiment.

(The hypothesis drawn from the observed fact above would be that force is acting on the rock to make it drop)

As more and more of these predictions are fulfilled, the level of confidence in our hypothesis grows until at some undefined point it passes through a mystical doorway to the vaunted heights of a THEORY

(and such is born the theory of gravity)

Even after this, bits can be added or taken away provided that the general premise remains unchanged.

In order for something to be a scientific theory it must be FALSIFIABLE

That is to say that it must make testable predictions which can be verified or falsified by the outcome of the experiment.


That is science in a nutshell for those of you who can't be bothered to wade through Num's link.



 :D  PY  :D

shvarz:
Hey PY, are you familiar with Godel's theorem of undefinability of truth?  Basically, in any axiomatic system it is possible to create a statement equivalent to "I am lying", therefore creating liar's paradox and discrediting the system.
How is that for basc logic?  :)  Sends it to hell, I say  B)

Endy:
Or the guy is simply lying about lying. :D

Endy B)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page