Logic and Empiricism

Empericism in philosophy is an Epistemology that holds our knowledge and understanding of reality is arrived at through our experience of the world rather than a priori ideas in the Kantian sense. The extension of this idea is that what cannot be directly experienced or measured cannot be known to exist.This notion is in opposition to philosophers such as Kant who hold that perception and experience have it's limits in our understanding of reality.In the "Critique of Pure Reason" Kant argued that what can be known cannot be said to be limited to our a posteri experiences and observations of the world. The only way that we directly experience reality is through our senses. He argues it does not neccesarily follow that our senses are suffieicient for capturing all of reality. Why should it be assumed that that there is no reality that goes beyond our direct experience, one that simply cannot be sensed and observed?The term Logic is often used in an amibguous and generic fashion. There are numerous 'systems' such as informal, formal, symbolic, deductive, inductive, and so on. In so many words the goal of a logician is to create a formal and rigourous system containing rational elements whose end result is the ability to arrive at a valid inference. In this sense a field such as mathematics is a logical system. It is based on an axiomatic system of deductive reasoning to arrive at valid conclusions. Likewise, we would likely say a conclusion is by defintion illogical if it does not conform to the elements of such a system of reasoning - if a conclusion cannot follow from a premise for instance.In common usage the word logic is often used as a synonym for sensibility or the lack thereof- Someone might make the statement 'Faith is illogical' or 'Evolution is illogical'. It is never stated how that conclusion was reached or what system was used to arrive at the conclusion. Logic is a term that is often abused.If any members wish to further this discussion I would like to propose the following question:Regarding my comments on Kant and Empricism above -Science is limited to the study of the phenomenological world. Within the context of the scientific method if it cannot be measured or observed it cannot be known. If there are phenomenon that are firmly outside of our possibility to measure or observe is it possible to deduce their existence using reason alone? Since one could not falsify the existence of such phenomeon emprically would one ever be able to give such phenomeon the status of fact?This ties heavily into the disucssion and ongoing debates taking place within the context of Evolution and Creationism. Please no polemic and be very precise and specific when it comes to terminonology and definitions. Just don't state something - present a rational and consistent argument for all to discuss. Edited by Grizz, : ProposalEdited by Grizz, : No reason given.

I aggree in principal; However, Is it possible using reason alone to deduce phenomenon that are beyond our ability to emperically detect? How far can we go in giving these phenomenon the status of fact?I added a postscript question to my post above. My goal is simply to get people to discuss how we come to know truths and what priority reason and empricism have in our search for truth.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Imagination is good. It often leads to novel ideas and discovery. As an example of what I am referring to let us consider the current state of String Theory. The proposed mathematical formalism depends upon the existence of compact dimensions - 'branes'. This has led to the further speculation that the mathematics requires or implies that our universe is just one of many with it's own constants and laws. Since these dimensions and universes are forever beyond our ability to measure emperically they are forever removed from our ability to experience yet they are a critical component of the theory. The existence of such dimensions has been arrived at through mathematical reasoning not observation.If String Theory were validated through experimentation would it follow that the dimensions and worlds actually exist or are simply a neccesary mathemtical tool to represent a process that exists in our universe? How could we ever verify this? Is the reasoning alone sufficient to give their existence the status of fact?This goes to the very heart of my question. It is a very important question because the answer determines how we arrive at our view of reality. It is important to the scientist as well as the philosopher.Anyways, I am stuck at home recovering from reconstructive ACL surgery and trying to keep occupied. I am looking forward to getting back to work this week as sitting around gets old real quick.

Regarding my comments related to String Theory in my preceeding post:The existence of compact dimensions and multiverses is predicted by the theory yet by neccesity forever beyond our ability to measure, observe, or experience. If one were to experimentally establish the existence of Strings does this establish the existence of the compact dimensions and multiverses predicted by the theory? If yes the result of reasoning alone can arrive at the existence of a phenomenon forever beyond our ability to experience or measure. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

The brane dimensions are required to make the mathematics consistent. They are absolutely critical to the theory. In practice we could only detect the existence of Strings themselves or other phenomenon that support the existence of Strings. We don't detect theories or parts of theories - we verify theories by verifying experimentally what they predict or dismiss - in this case the existence of Strings. We would never be able to experimentally measure or experience the brane dimensions by the very nature of what they are.Therefore we could only say 2 things about the ontological status of branes:- They are simply a convinient mathematical tool wihtin the theory and do no exist in reality.- They exist in reality and their existence is established by reason and not by emperical measurement or observation.If one takes the position that the existence of Strings neccesitates the existence of Branes and Multiverses then one has arrived at a phenomenon that by their very nature is forever beyond our ability to measure or experience yet has a causal influence on the universe in which we exist. One would then be forced to conclude there are phenomeon that are forever beond our ability to experience or measure yet in fact exist in reality. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Perhaps I should of stated that more succinctly. This is similar to the emergence of the idea of the idea of Black Holes that arrose out of the mathematics present in the Theory of General Relativity. For a while it was hotly debated whether such entities in fact existed as part of physical reality. When General Relativity appeared on the scene Singularities(infinities) have never been shown to be present in nature. The mathematics, however implied just that - a singularity. Simply because the mathematics implied their existence does not neccesarily mean such singularities actually exist in nature. The astronomical community set out to try to find emperical evidence for their existence. Without such evidence the notion would simply be relegated to speculation. The last I read on the subject there appears to be a substantial body of astronomical observations that directly supports their presence in physical reality.With String Theory the situation is different. As theorists themselves readily admit the branes are compactified dimensions forever removed from our ability to detect. How would you conduct an experiment to detect their existence? At the present moment nobody has any idea. Verifying the theory emperically would only establish that the theory is capable of describing some aspect of physical reality. It would not emperically demonstrate that branes are real just as the emperical proof for General Relativity did not demonstrate that Black Holes are physically real.The ideas of Multiverses is even more difficult. There are a large number of solutions to the equations, each of which is speculated to correpond to a seperate universe of it's own. Each would have it's owns constants and resulting laws. There have been many interesting accounts of this in the pop science literature on the book shelves. These multiverses - should they exist - would forever be removed from any causal connection with one another. They would therefore never be able to be established as scientific fact as they could never be emperically observed.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Delete please. I hit the update button twice. Sorry.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

I am not advocating a position or trying to take a position - I was just trying to get a discussion going that might cary over into the main topic of this forum. And yes Stragg - Ultimately I was asking how far is one willing to go with reason alone? What place does reason have in determining truth or value within scientific inquiry?I studied Physics and Math as an undergrad then went on to the History and Philosophy of Science in grad school. I am currently working towards my doctorate in this field.My study in physics was fascinating but I always found myself gravitating more towards the questions posed within the context of philosophy. I was always getting in trouble asking questions that irritated professors -'Are electrical fields real or just usefull mathematical tools to describe reality?'. Ask this question and you often get a disbelieving stare as if you just asked if Bigfoot was real. I was determined to go into grad school and continue my study in Physics but at the last minute learned of a top notch program in The History and Philosophy of Science. I was enthralled.Scientists often dismiss the questions posed by philosophy as irelevant to the task at hand but on the contrary I believe it offers much. Most scientists rarely stop to ask why and how they do what they do on a fundamental level. The History and Philosophy of science is in itself a very complex and rich subject that has much to offer to the future of the scientific enterpise. Unfortunately it is grossly overlooked and ignored by most scientists.On a side note my academic interest in the field is the role process and emergent properties have in nature. In our current ontological view of physical reality process is subservient to substance - it does not share in the workings of nature but is relegated to byproduct. I believe this is one of the reasons that we have yet failed to reach a consensus on an adequate interpretation of Quantum Mechanics or the nature of Consciousness and it's possible existence as an emergent property of the organism. In my view process shares equal ontological status with substance as the driving mechanism of change in nature. I do not subscribe to the notion that there exist fundamental entities that can be seperated from their environment and given autonomy. For instance in a bubble chamber a scientist is not observing a particle - the scientist is observing the interaction of the particle with the bubble chamber. It is the end result of the Quantum process itself that is being observed. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

I too am a physics/maths undergrad who got happily sidetracked by the philosophy of science courses (all seems a very long time ago alas).
I agree that questioning the nature of reality beyond the 'that which works' mentality is interesting and worthwhile even if often frustrating and fruitless.

​

So given that Nator has answered the question to some degree as to how far he would take reason alone in the search for truth - how would you relate all of this back to the OP?

​

It seems that most of those with a scientific bent, including myself, see the deductions of reason alone as useful and potentially fruitful areas for prediction and further enquiry but are broadly sceptical of calling anything that is not ultimately backed up by empirical evidence of some sort, scientific 'fact'. I was really hoping to hear the opinions of at least one ID supporter on the subject.In the Scientific Enterprise theory and reasoning will always be subservient to observation. Regardless of what a theory predicts or how logically consistent it may appear to our rational mind reason is strictly a means to an end. This is how science works and how it differentiates itself from other fields of inquiry such as Philosophy. Both are important in their own right but take a different path to deciphering the nature of reality. They complement one another. I believe Scientists generally distrust philsopohers as meddling nit-pickers and philosophers question many of the conclusions scientists reach regarding the nature of absolutes and of reality.I believe the discord lies in misunderstandings of what types of truths each system is after. The assertion that the sun will rise tomorrow is neither true nor false - the truth of the statement is contingent - as are all scientific assertions regarding physical reality that have been born from observation. Science does not deal in absolute truths but contingencies. The reasoning employed is inductive. No matter how many times we measure the mass of the electron there is no way to state with absolute certainty that future observations will yield the same result. Although the idea is absurd there is nothing about our current observation of the mass today that suggests a future measurement will not produce a different result. We can only say based on observations to date we have no rational reason to believe nature will suddenly change its mind. To a scientist this is nit picking but thats what philosophers do. Science by it's nature is an inductive system and cannot establish absolute truths.So in relation to my initital post - scientific facts cannot be deduced from reason alone no matter how compelling the argument. An emperical justification will awlays be needed. Branes will simply be a conjecture until emperically verified. Multiverses will remain foroever outside of our ability to detect emeprically and will be limited to an interesting theoretical possibility. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.