LOL

[Beyonder]

If it falls outside of the realm of logic, then why are you calling it invalid?

Did I say that? No. Strawman.

[ferunandesu]

No, I was referring to the law of non-contradiction not being logical, here. Just because it can be expressed in a symbolic form doesn't make it logical per definition. Besides, I'm always, always talking about symbolic logic when I mention the word 'logic'.

Did I say that? No. Strawman.

So take your pick: not logical, illogical, or logically invalid. They're all the same in this context. Saying that logic is either one is a contradiction, and you can't seem to express the problem that you have with logic without using logic. This alone is a testament to logic's importance to science, and to thought in general.

Anyways, as to whether or not logic is logical itself, that's the realm of metalogic.

[Beyonder]

So, you have no idea what a priori means? Get a dictionary. I already trashed your arguments, and I don't need your concent to do so. This argument is over, has been already since page two. You being unreasonable doesn't change that. "I can give you arguments. I can't give you insight."

[ferunandesu]

So, you have no idea what a priori means? Get a dictionary. I already trashed your arguments

I know what 'a priori' means.

The "God of the gaps" and a law that formed without a direct observation of it's trueness, but through mere thought, are not the same thing. BECAUSE, the "God of the gaps" has a recursive range of alternate explanations that ARE NOT equivalent to the original. However, if you wanted to change the law of noncontradiction, then the alternates would be equivalent in all cases.

But this is not your argument. Your argument is that logical validity isn't an important part of scientific falsification, and it is indeed.

[Beyonder]

But this is not your argument. Your argument is that logical validity isn't an important part of science, and it is indeed.

Strawmanning again? Reread post #20. Post #29 for my position on the law of non-contradiction. Like I said, I already am done with all of your points; even the red herrings.

[ferunandesu]

Strawmanning again? Reread post #20. Post #29 for my position on the law of non-contradiction. Like I said, I already am done with all of your points; even the red herrings.

Reread my replies to them, and then reread your irrelevant objections (or red herrings). You've already admitted that all of my arguments are right.

You see,

Anyway, since the law of non-contradiction isn't logical itself, and you where claiming that logic would have to be an intrinsic part in judgeing if a theory is scientifically valid or not on the account of that, and you conceded to this point, then would it be fair to say that logic isn't important in judgeing if a theory is scientific or not?

This is where you went awry. I quickly gave you a response, and you countered with the law of noncontradiction and quantum superposition, which I quickly showed was both irrelevant and wrong. You claiming that Poppler shows that logic isn't important is wrong as well.

[Beyonder]

Yes, well maybe you're suffering from egocentric speech, a hallmark of a childlike mind. I suggest reading up on Lev Vygotsky and his theories. It could also be that you're just having a fit of compensation for your own inferiority feelings; that's Adler, for if you're not aware of psychological theory.
Being incapable of apprehending someone elses arguments and your insistance of being right really does point in both directions. Technically, yes, that was an ad hominem. It also is my psychological analysis of you.

[ferunandesu]

Funny, I thought the same thing of you. You're still going to have to show that logic isn't important in refuting any given theory. But wait, you've already admitted that it is, then why do you say that you've shredded my arguments? You continually admit that I'm right.

There's an observable cycle here. I made the OP, you made a claim. I as well as Hilbert showed you that your claim is unreasonable. You argue. I show that your point is irrelevant to the claim you made. You try to dismiss this with various terms and such. I show that the points are irrelevent, and occasionally wrong. You repeat. I repeat, and so on.

You don't have a point to your argument, you admit to this, and then you continue to argue. Why?

Furthermore you resort to ad hominem when you realize that none of your objections are valid, and that you occasionally object to what I'm saying with the very point that you were objecting (in effect).

Also, my speech isn't egocentric, I'm simply getting tired of continually fleshing out the same details.

Simply put, logic underlies all of science. Observation is important, sure, but I didn't say that it wasn't. What could you do with an observation if you couldn't think logically? Logic underlies both epistemology and testability, and it can be used to object to the merit of a theory, since a logically derived falsehood is grounds for further study and in all cases the kink is eventually ironed out. I don't have to type all of this explicitly for it to be true, and it stands that your claim that observation is waaay more important than logic is false. They are equal in the sense that there would be no science without either one, and I think that you know this, so I'm still not quite sure what you're arguing about. You've trashed no argument. Everything that I've said here is consistent.

[Beyonder]

You still here? Going on about this stuff?

OK, I'll help you on your way. Logic doesn't underly epistemology or testability. You're mucking up 'reason' with 'logic', there (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason p... nevermind. Just read all of it.). And I'm not the only one who claims that observation is most important in the scientific method. Popper and Hawking agree with me on that account. But you apparently don't know anything about philosophy of science, lol, making this argument rather pointless.
Besides, you still being here putting all this effort into your little post does make it look like I struck a nerve. Again, lol

[ferunandesu]

I've been looking at other stuff for the most part. My homework, laundry, shower, etc.

You're going to have to post evidence for your claim that Logic isn't behind both epistemology and testability. Since I'm quite sure that if I read the Critique of Pure Reason, then I would find that no such claim is made.

I'm mucking up 'reason' with 'logic'? Logic is the study of reasoning. Now you're going to have to offer me an example of logically invalid, yet sound reasoning. You tried with quantum superposition, but as I said, once you grasp quantum physics you'll understand that it doesn't break any laws of logic. Also, I'm quite sure that no one could 'grasp' something that is illogical (both valid and sound) since not being logical would constitute not being reasonable (as I said, logic is the study of reasoning) and therefore would be outside of the realm of pure thought. I'm not saying that there aren't things that exist outside of pure thought, but that neither you, Einstein, Popper, Hawking, Godel, nor even William James Sidis could understand it. This is why I'm not going to read anything that you recommend, unless, of course, I feel like it.