Can we figure things out purely with reason

[Namaste]

I'm making this thread because while reading around, I see several posts mainly just dealing with Philosophy, apparently going with the Aristotle tradition that we don't need to observe things to see if they're true, we can just reason them.

Honestly I find that type of thinking backwards and ridiculous. Using the Aristotle tradition we spent hundreds of years with no advances because people didn't want to actually do tests and see what happened. We couldn't even advance until finally Newton showed everyone that their reasoning was wrong, not through some sort of logical contradictions but instead by showing them that the universe did not line up with their reasoning.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Well, you sort of answered your own question. Obviously, without the true, hard facts and evidence, nothing gets anywhere. I mean, hell, take Smash Bros, for example. People can theorycraft all day long, and they still do to this very day, yet they can't contend with the hard evidence provided once people actually test things in the game.

With that said, reasoning and evidence go hand in hand. If you have evidence, you must have reasoning to know what to do with it. Evidence is nothing unless it is applied and understood, so to that extent, and on some level, reasoning is obviously a great tool. But neither can be solely used to advance something or, on a smaller scale, win a basic argument.

I think a lot of people tend to just reason because it's a lot easier than having to actually test something. I'm sure a lot of people would love to just talk and talk without giving sources or evidence to back themselves up because it's easier that way, but it just doesn't fly.

 

[gm jack]

Well, it is necessary to a degree. For example, a lot of physics today is theoretical, using what we know to predict the next steps and how we can prove if these ideas are correct.

Not many experiments are carried out when they have no idea of potential outcomes.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The way I see it, No.

Reasoning only works if you're starting premises hold true, and to be sure of that, you need observations. Otherwise your arguments are valid, but not sound.

An example:

We're talking about Bill, an egg.

• All eggs are green.
• Bill is an egg.
• Therefore Bill is green.

This is a valid argument, through pure reasoning alone, this could be as true as any other sound argument. However, it is not sound, we know that all eggs are most definitely not green, through observation.

• The light coming from Bill appears to be have the wavelength of ~ 560–490 nm.
• ~ 560–490 nm appears "Green" to most people, who are not colour blind.
• Therefore Bill is green.

Let's for a moment assume that Bill is actually Green and both of those premises are true. Then we have a sound argument. We can only differentiate between the former and the latter with observation and experimentation.

The difference between a sound argument and a valid one is that a valid argument as unsupported premises, but good reasoning, while a sound argument as true premises and good reasoning. So consequently, observation is necessary to create sound arguments, unless you're fooling around with tautologies, which don't get anyone anywhere.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Corollary: Can we explicitly use reason in order to figure out whether or not we can figure things out purely with reason?

Namaste's proposition: f(x)
My corollary: g(f(x))

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No. The problem with this is that reason on its own is wonderful, but has no basis in reality. We can examine certain logical truths, such as if X=Y and Y=Z, X=Z; however, we cannot effectively use reason for anything with a basis in reality until we have exposed ourselves to and studied this reality. As pointed out in the examples above. Reason is still valid, but completely useless without some form of reality to base itself on.

 

[Dre89]

You do know that science is a branch of logic right?

 

[Namaste]

You do know that science is a branch of logic right?

Man I created this thread for you, and have been waiting patiently for you to respond. I see that you did, and that's the post you make? You didn't even touch up on it.

Science has evolved since Aristotle. We now don't care if things make sense, if the evidence and math supports it, if it's something someone else can independently verify or it makes correct predictions, then we accept it as true.

But I'm not interested in getting into a petty debate about that. I'm saying that only using our minds is ridiculous, it helped us before but philosophy is currently dead as a science. It's moved beyond simply sitting down and thinking about things. Math and science is where it's at.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You do know that science is a branch of logic right?

So? The scientific method is a branch of logic that relies on observation, experimentation and correction. It's not pure reason. And it's what's made modern civilisation possible. What branch of philosophy invented the computer, what branch of philosophy can feed the world, what branch of philosophy can land people on the moon, and what branch of philosophy can save people's lives? Science. Pure reason hasn't done any of that.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

You do know that science is a branch of logic right?

S o?

 

[gm jack]

Well, that would indicate that we can figure things out in branches like maths purely logically. As it is a purely logical discipline, it would make sense that you only make discoveries by logic.

 

[Reaver197]

Here's something that is relevant to this discussion.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

 

[Dre89]

Well, that would indicate that we can figure things out in branches like maths purely logically. As it is a purely logical discipline, it would make sense that you only make discoveries by logic.

Exactly.

Science is just one type of logic.

Why do we rely on observation and experiment? Because we find it reasonable to do so.

In fact, it was pure reason that concluded that science can deduce truths.

The only things outside pure reason are things like fideism and emotivism.

Science is wonderful, but you guys make out that it's the only thing that's advanced civilisation.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Science is wonderful, but you guys make out that it's the only thing that's advanced civilisation.

Says the debater typing on the keyboard that science made possible. :3

Scientific naturalism has a pretty stacked record. Just saying.

 

[Dre89]

So you don't think democracy or the social contract were advancements?

You don't think universities are advancements?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Exactly.

Science is just one type of logic.

Why do we rely on observation and experiment? Because we find it reasonable to do so.

In fact, it was pure reason that concluded that science can deduce truths.

Not necessarily. We rely on observation and experiment, because it works. It produces things that work. It produces theories that can be seen to be true, and from those theories technology that is of significant value. That and because through reasoning, we find a difference between valid and sound arguments.

The only things outside pure reason are things like fideism and emotivism.

It isn't pure reason. It relies on observation and experiment.

Science is wonderful, but you guys make out that it's the only thing that's advanced civilisation.

True, but it is one of the main driving forces that have allowed our civilisation to be where it is now.

Actually as GM Jack is saying, pure reason actually works when it comes to things such as mathematics. And science is often applied mathematics, so pure reason actually does get us some places, but if we actually want to find out things about reality and make things, observation and experiment are needed.

 

[Namaste]

So you don't think democracy or the social contract were advancements?

You don't think universities are advancements?

Using Newton's laws, we've been able to advance ourselves greatly. But that doesn't mean we didn't look at Einstein's ideas, and go "lol nah we like the old one". We replaced them because we could improve.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Using Newton's laws, we've been able to advance ourselves greatly. But that doesn't mean we didn't look at Einstein's ideas, and go "lol nah we like the old one". We replaced them because we could improve.

Took the words right out my mouth.

And hasn't that claim about universities already been addressed?

 

[Dre89]

Not necessarily. We rely on observation and experiment, because it works. It produces things that work. It produces theories that can be seen to be true, and from those theories technology that is of significant value. That and because through reasoning, we find a difference between valid and sound arguments.



It isn't pure reason. It relies on observation and experiment.

But it's pure reason which concludes whether this methodology arrives at truth or not.

This the point I'm making, any turth claim you make is based on pure reason, whether it be faulty or not. Pure reason is always the foundational principle behind any attempt to arrive at truth.

If we didn't have the capcity to exhibit pure reason, we would never have arrived at science, or most other things for that matter.

Just as the boss of my uni says, reason cannot be eliminated from thought.

True, but it is one of the main driving forces that have allowed our civilisation to be where it is now.

It's also the main reason why 20 million people got killed in a World War.

Actually as GM Jack is saying, pure reason actually works when it comes to things such as mathematics. And science is often applied mathematics, so pure reason actually does get us some places, but if we actually want to find out things about reality and make things, observation and experiment are needed.

But science is just pure reason using experience. Science is just one sub-field of logic. Biology is just one sub-field of science. By your logic, I would have to say biology isn't purely scientific, when it in fact it is, it's just applying science through a particular scope. The foundational principle is still science, and science only.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But it's pure reason which concludes whether this methodology arrives at truth or not.

This the point I'm making, any turth claim you make is based on pure reason, whether it be faulty or not. Pure reason is always the foundational principle behind any attempt to arrive at truth.

If we didn't have the capcity to exhibit pure reason, we would never have arrived at science, or most other things for that matter.

Just as the boss of my uni says, reason cannot be eliminated from thought.

It contains pure reason, at some level. However, it is not in it's entirety pure reason.

It's also the main reason why 20 million people got killed in a World War.

No. That was war. I'm sorry, nobody went to war in the name of science. Science itself doesn't kill people, it's the technology it creates that may kill people. And in most cases it doesn't. It saves people. The reason there are 6 Billion people on this planet is because of advances in technology, in medicine and agriculture.

But science is just pure reason using experience. Science is just one sub-field of logic. Biology is just one sub-field of science. By your logic, I would have to say biology isn't purely scientific, when it in fact it is, it's just applying science through a particular scope. The foundational principle is still science, and science only.

No. Science is just reason using observation and experiment. It is in no way pure. Biology is scientific, because it meets the criteria to be scientific. Science doesn't meet the criteria to be considered pure reason. At least in my eyes. It's got nothing to do with sub-fields.

 

[Dre89]

It seems we're just going to keep repeating ourselves, so we should just quit qwhile we're ahead.

I sense alot of scientism on these boards. I guess that's just a trait of our modern culture though.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I don't know what you mean by "scientism", but any reasonable person would agree that science has had a MASSIVE part in advancing civilization. Sure, it's not the only thing, but it's probably the biggest factor.

Also, all science is based off observation, not just reason (although reason can factor in, it's not the only factor). Saying "reason is the only way we know science works" does not mean reason is the only factor. You haven't done any science whatsoever just by reasoning. Sure, you can reason that science will work. But you need to do things other than reasoning (i.e. observation) to actually accomplish any science. So the answer to the thread question, "can we figure things out purely with reason" is no, because you need to actually do some observation to make any scientific discoveries.

 

[Dre89]

Scientism is the belief that science has authority over all other fields of study, that onyl science can conclude truths. So these people who say "there's no physical evidence of God, there He doesn't exist" are scientisists.

Of course, it commtis a fallcy of ciruclarity, because to know that scientific methodlogy works, you need another form of reasoning (ie. pure reasoning), because you can't use scientific methodology to prove that scientific methodology concludes truth. It'd be like using faith to prove that faith concludes truth. Therefore, on that alone, there already must be at least one other form of acquiring truth outside of science, essentially refuting scientism.

As for your argument, the act of observation alone is seperate to reason.

The act of using observation to conclude truths requires reason as the foundational principle.

Think of it this way. There is a distinction between one's reason, and their thoughts, because not every thought you have is a result of your logic (eg. a thought of a made-up monster).

When we use reason to assess the truth of our thoughts or ideas, we call that pure reason. When we use reason to assess the truth of our observations, we call it science.

Now, why is the second one not considered pure reason as well? Both scenarios evaluate a methodology separate to one's reason (ie. thoughts and observation).

Both apply one's logic in the same way, it's just a different subject. Pure reason is just using reason as your foundational principle, which both scenarios do.

So if you're going to say science is not a result of pure reason, then neither is what you would call "pure reason". In that case, pure reaosn would actually not exist.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm going to reply a little later. But for the moment, we're not saying science isn't the result of pure reason. We're saying it isn't pure reason. There is a large difference there.

 

[Dre89]

Ok, but then what is pure reason?

As I tried to show with my previous post, any methodology attempting to deduce truth is just reason evaluating a particular subject (eg. a thought/idea, observation), meaning that nothing would be pure reason.

Pure reason encompasses science, just like how biology is encompassed in science. Saying that the observation aspect of science is distinct from reason is like saying there is a component of biology which is distinct from science, which is not the case.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Scientism is the belief that science has authority over all other fields of study, that onyl science can conclude truths. So these people who say "there's no physical evidence of God, there He doesn't exist" are scientisists.

Of course, it commtis a fallcy of ciruclarity, because to know that scientific methodlogy works, you need another form of reasoning (ie. pure reasoning), because you can't use scientific methodology to prove that scientific methodology concludes truth. It'd be like using faith to prove that faith concludes truth. Therefore, on that alone, there already must be at least one other form of acquiring truth outside of science, essentially refuting scientism.

As for your argument, the act of observation alone is seperate to reason.

The act of using observation to conclude truths requires reason as the foundational principle.

Think of it this way. There is a distinction between one's reason, and their thoughts, because not every thought you have is a result of your logic (eg. a thought of a made-up monster).

When we use reason to assess the truth of our thoughts or ideas, we call that pure reason. When we use reason to assess the truth of our observations, we call it science.

Now, why is the second one not considered pure reason as well? Both scenarios evaluate a methodology separate to one's reason (ie. thoughts and observation).

Both apply one's logic in the same way, it's just a different subject. Pure reason is just using reason as your foundational principle, which both scenarios do.

So if you're going to say science is not a result of pure reason, then neither is what you would call "pure reason". In that case, pure reaosn would actually not exist.

None of this really effects what I said. Nothing in science can be accomplished without observation. Maybe pure reason makes science possible, but science cannot occur without observation.

Think of it this way. Let's say that I use reason to determine I can pick up a pencil by using my hand to grasp it and then lifting my arm. Then I proceed to do this action. However, the achievement of lifting the pencil never would have been accomplished without going through the procedure. Similarly, the achievement of making a scientific discovery cannot be accomplished without going through the procedure.

Even if reason is the only reason science exists, we do not make scientific discoveries just by reasoning. You have to observe. Then you can use reason to determine whether your observations are accurate, or how to interpret them. But the point is that you need to go through the procedure of observation at some point. Otherwise, you will have accomplished nothing. And, since you need observation, you cannot discover things purely with reason.

Pure reason encompasses science, just like how biology is encompassed in science. Saying that the observation aspect of science is distinct from reason is like saying there is a component of biology which is distinct from science, which is not the case.

Not true. Try telling a man who is blind, deaf, mute, and has no sense of smell to observe something. They can't use pure reason. You have to have sensory input.

 

[Dre89]

Observation on its own is spearate to reason.

However, observation on its own is not scientific either.

What science is, is the use of observation to conclude truths, which applies pure reason as its foundational principle.

There is nothing scientific about me playing a video game, but conducting an experiment to determine what temperature water boils at is scientific. Both apply observation, but only the latter is scientific, because only the latter is attempting to deduce truth.

Only when observation is used to, and considered to deduce truth does it become scientific, but that is the point where its foundational principle is reason.

 

[KrazyGlue]

What science is, is the use of observation to conclude truths, which applies pure reason as its foundational principle.

That's the point! You have to have observation! It doesn't matter what the "foundational principle" is. The whole point I'm making is that you need observation to make scientific discoveries. You can't just use reason. Observation requires you to physically sense something, such as through sight. Now, you can use reason to determine how to interpret your observation, but you have to have something other than reason to observe something! I don't care what the foundational principle is, all I care about is that physical observation of something is required. And without that physical, sensory observation, science is not possible.

 

[Dre89]

Ok, but at the same time, I can say biology isn't purely scientific, because it requires animals and plants. I can see where you're coming from though.

When I look at the title of the OP, to me it seems the only contradictory methods would be fideism or emotion.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I guess Krazy Glue got to you first. I'm glad to see eye to eye with you on something here.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Ok, but at the same time, I can say biology isn't purely scientific, because it requires animals and plants.

Well, not necessarily.

1) Not all biology requires plants or animals. For instance, paleontology, a branch of biology, studies fossils to figure out information about animals in prehistoric times. Or take Aerobiology, in which scientists study things such as pollen grains and fungi spores in the air.

2) Animals and plants are not mutually exclusive with science. If you are physically sensing something, that means you have to be doing something other than reasoning, since reasoning inherently only involves thought. But animals and plants can be utilized in a scientific context, without changing the fact that you're still doing science.

3) Animals and plants are not part of the action of science itself. They are simply tools to be observed within a scientific context. The actual "science" takes place when you observe something about the animal or plant and then do an experiment and make conclusions.

I guess Krazy Glue got to you first. I'm glad to see eye to eye with you on something here.

Lol. We only had opposing views in the drug legalization and ground zero mosque though. We've had some where we've agreed as well, it was just longer ago.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Lol. We only had opposing views in the drug legalization and ground zero mosque though. We've had some where we've agreed as well, it was just longer ago.

It just feels good to be agreeing with everyone. I must say. Debating against you is hard.

 

[Dre89]

You don't gain anything from agreeing with everyone.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You don't gain anything from agreeing with everyone.

I'm just saying, it feels good to agree with others. Humans are social animals, they like to participate in group think. I'm a human.

 

[Dre89]

If I agree with too many people, I start thinking that I'm being influenced by my environment too much, via up bringing, culture, media etc.

That doesn't mean I deliberately disagree with everyone, but you get my point.

 

[blazedaces]

If I agree with too many people, I start thinking that I'm being influenced by my environment too much, via up bringing, culture, media etc.

That doesn't mean I deliberately disagree with everyone, but you get my point.

Dre, I just want to point out you tend to agree with the majority on EVERY SUBJECT DISCUSSED. When I say the majority I mean the majority of the world, not the majority of the debate hall.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Uh no...

The debate hall represents the majority of modern people.

Pretty much all the thought that has influenced modern culture is represented here in the DH.

You guys are typical modern people. Not that it makes you less intelligent or anything, but you guys are dreaming if you think you haven't been heavily influenced by thought from the Enlightenment Period onwards, because the majority of you guys represent those trends to a tee.

I'm not saying that I'm above you, or that I'm not affected by culture to any extent, but I do make a conscious effort not to be guided by it, for cultures are only temporary. That's different to rebelling against a culture, which is deliberately opposing everything in it, which is essentially just as much a reaction to the culture as just obediently comforming to it.

 

[Reaver197]

I'd love to see the statistics you used to determine that your experience of the debate hall on a video game website represents the majority of modern people.

Cause I can tell you, Asia alone blows that sentence to hell.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Uh no...

The debate hall represents the majority of modern people.

Pretty much all the thought that has influenced modern culture is represented here in the DH.

You guys are typical modern people. Not that it makes you less intelligent or anything, but you guys are dreaming if you think you haven't been heavily influenced by thought from the Enlightenment Period onwards, because the majority of you guys represent those trends to a tee.

I'm not saying that I'm above you, or that I'm not affected by culture to any extent, but I do make a conscious effort not to be guided by it, for cultures are only temporary. That's different to rebelling against a culture, which is deliberately opposing everything in it, which is essentially just as much a reaction to the culture as just obediently comforming to it.

Okay, so the majority of people live in America? Have access to computers? Enjoy video games? Take smash seriously enough to join a forum discussing it? For some reason or other, I don't believe you're 100% correct in this case.

 

[Dre89]

I'm talking about attitudes and views.

Most people here are physicalist atheists who are criticial of religion. Alot of people here are also moral relativists, or believe merely upholding the socail contract is that is required in morality. Most people here reject metaphysics and the teleology of nature.

These are all typical modern traits, which stem from the Enlightenment Period. I mean, even the period of philosophy which all that comes from is literally called "modern philosophy".

I don't mean that as an insult or anything. Personally, I'm just cautious to subscribe to too many modern ideas, for the fear of over-appealing to just one authority out of many.