# Tools of the trade - Philosophy

#### Ponderer

##### Expert Member
You seem like the kind of guy who might seriously enjoy this. Debunked - Kickstarter <-- Link

I've backed it and I can't wait for it to arrive
Ever played Balderdash?
Its a real eye opener as to just how gullible educated people can be - that bullsh*t indeed baffles brains.

#### Ponderer

##### Expert Member
In my research with regards to Boolean Logic and Formal/Informal Logic, I learned that there are certain mathematical principles which are not algebraic (i.e. not boolean compatible) and/or others that are not compatible with logic.
What be these researched Mathematical Principles that are not compatible with Logic?
Are you saying that Logic is sometimes not logical (incompatible with Logic)?

Last edited:

#### Ponderer

##### Expert Member
myBB and indeed many fora on the internet are littered with examples of extremely poor reasoning.

I don't have a specific reference for this yet, as it comes out of my notes from University (1968 - 1972) 4 years Engineering plus 1 extra for a degree in Computer Science (some overlap in subjects at the time.
Deductive Arguments
This is the most powerful form of reasoning. It is the type of logic that results in logical proofs. It goes from general concepts and/or specific observations to a focused conclusion.

In science, deductive logic is typically what is used to arrive at facts. In other words, we use it to determine the results of specific experiments.

Inductive logic
Inductive logic always results in a general conclusion and can be used to construct theories. It should be noted, that it is impossible to use deductive logic to arrive at a theory. Theories only come from inductive logic.

Additionally, because of the law of large numbers, the strength of an inductive conclusion increases as the number of observations used to form the conclusion increases.

Summary
To summarize, scientists generally use deductive logic to determine the outcomes of specific experiments (sometimes inductive logic is also required depending on the nature of the experiment), and we use inductive logic to generalize from those experiments and form laws and theories. This is true for all laws/theories, whether we are talking about the laws of thermodynamics or the theory of gravity.

In a Good Argument, all the premises are true, there are no logical fallacies, and the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

Reject a bad argument, not its conclusion. The only times you reject a bad argument and its conclusion are when the argument is absolutely essential to your opponent’s position. Under that condition, demonstrating that the argument is bad also demonstrates that the conclusion is wrong.

Law of Large Numbers
This law states that as you increase the number of repetitions in an experiment, your calculated value will approach the true value. In other words, you need a large sample size to have confidence in your results.

Perhaps the greatest support of an inductive conclusion is, however, its ability to predict other events/make things work.
Inductive logic always results in a general conclusion and can be used to construct theories. It should be noted, that it is impossible to use deductive logic to arrive at a theory. Theories only come from inductive logic.
The quoted part of your post (in bold) makes no sense.

#### Gingerbeardman

##### Expert Member
Inductive logic always results in a general conclusion and can be used to construct theories. It should be noted, that it is impossible to use deductive logic to arrive at a theory. Theories only come from inductive logic.
The quoted part of your post (in bold) makes no sense.
Deductive logic cannot tell you anything you don't already know.

#### Ponderer

##### Expert Member
Deductive logic cannot tell you anything you don't already know.
So deductive logic cannot be used to derive a theory?

#### Gingerbeardman

##### Expert Member
So deductive logic cannot be used to derive a theory?
Define "theory".

#### DMNknight

##### Expert Member
For those interested in the methodologies used by people to stop rational discourse.