Because science has not decided upon which logic is based . Is it mathematics , or the physical ? Symbolic logic . Mathematics Or the logic of the existence of the physical .
Science is about knowledge of the physical . Once understood ; then the science of logic will evolve .
Don't need it; there isn't anything for such a science to study. Logic is a tool of science. Why no carpentry of hammers?
Exactly. The question as originally stated is somewhat meaningless. His restatement of the question makes a little more sense.
jeses was not Geppetto... jesus is Pinocchio quips a-side i think he is talking about structural laws associated to define the parameters of the conceptual working rules of logic as a method of philosophical human science. it makes sense to me, but im completely mad so i don't expect many others to comprehend my perspective on things Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "jeses what a big nose you have" said the farmers daughter to the carpenter
Sense is one thing. Application is another. Can you outline a useful purpose for this new pigeon science?
philosophy of science ... The scientific application of philosophical conceptualization of actualization to metaphysics properties of fundamental experiential quantitative manifestation the missing link between philosophy and quantum physics
Science is about observations and adopting theories to make sense of and predictions from them. I f that is applied to logic perhaps we would have to consider statements considered "logical" at the outset and evaluate how their predictions shaped out in the real world. As well as I know all logical frameworks involve adopting a first assumption and extrapolating from their with a view to following a predictable and falsifiable methodology at every link in the chain of argumentation. Since I am neither a philosopher nor a logistician(real word?) I am not sure if that is a basis for anything worthwhile since it may just amount to being (methodically) sceptical as to any conclusions one draws about any statements one makes.
i get a sense of implied rule by their interpretation. much like a theoretical process backed by variant complex laws and theory. what i dont know is if there is any structural scientific literal backing to their theory. im not a mind reader. a statement made by someone with degrees in physics mathematics and philosophy would have a vastly more implied meaning were they to quip a sense of this subject, which is where i am drawing my sense of interest from as a fascination toward an unknown. maybe i am drawing a bow to long from an area that is defined as subjective principal boundary need(as write4u explained in the other thread) is there a nuance of physics theory in the mathematical value of thought absolutes to reason logic as a sense of absolute process ? i find it mildly interesting though i barely grasp any of it. pseudoscience ?
I don't understand who "their" refers back to in your statement.. Is it "the rule"? "the conclusions"? ,"the interpreters" whoever they might be? I am guessing you may have meant "the conclusions" ....but are not "conclusions" and "interpretations" pretty synonymous?(maybe that would work)
yes thats it "their" assumptive conclusions is what i get from it. River & http://sciforums.com/threads/why-still-no-science-of-logic.162046/ im just musing
Perhaps science has not but nature certainly has. Both. Agreed. And applied logic. Physics. The existence and behavior of the physical is pretty well understood. E = Mc^2.
Applied logic is a tool, with practical application to science, to philosophy, to politics, to auto mechanics, to stalking mice, to soap-making, to dowsing for water, to climbing trees - to every activity that requires thought or strategy. Formal logic is a game, with its own internal rules; used solely for theoretical argument. Why would either kind need any more elaborating? Wouldn't it be more fun to play tiddlywinks?
If there is a science of logic, is there a logic of science and are they the same thing? Is there a logic of the science of logic, a science of the logic of science?
There will be . And really should be . Because knowledge , is what grows science of logic . And this knowledge is fundamentally based on the physical Universe . Then comes the mathematics of knowledge . The physical being based on energy and matter and Life .
a science of logic, a science of the logic of science, a philosophy of the science of the logic of the philosophy of science Talking in circles doesn't increase knowledge; it only increases the illusion of intelligence. I bet you can't give a coherent definition or description of those three proposed 'disciplines'.
