Rational, Logical, Scientific?

Ali
Ali's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Rational, Logical, Scientific?

Sorry if this is very obvious, blame it on me being half asleep... I was just trying to clarify some meanings... is logical thought a 'subdivision' (if you will) of rational thought? And is scientific thought, in turn, a subdivision of logical thought?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 Do you mean "subset"? As

 Do you mean "subset"? As in, all logical thought is rational, but not all rational thought is necessarily logical? I'd say so, but I'll leave it to our philosophers. "Scientific thought" is a broad idea, so while it qualifies as rational thought, it wouldn't necessarily be a subset of logic only. The scientific process relies occasionally on irrational stabs in the dark, so I'm not sure you could determine that all scientific thought was dependent even on rationality.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Ali
Ali's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Well in this usage

Well in this usage "subdivision" works fine so I guess I didn't mean "subset", but if it keeps you happy "subset" works too. But yes, you understand me correctly.

It's just that people can quite commonly use these words and  I wonder how correctly they are used.  For example,  what precisely do you mean by "irrational stabs in the dark"? Do you mean without basis (in which case can that be classed as scientific)?

I would have thought that scientific thought wasn't as broad as rational thought as scientific thought is restricted by the scientific method which defines it.

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Ali wrote:Well in this usage

Ali wrote:

Well in this usage "subdivision" works fine so I guess I didn't mean "subset", but if it keeps you happy "subset" works too. But yes, you understand me correctly.

It's just that people can quite commonly use these words and  I wonder how correctly they are used.  For example,  what precisely do you mean by "irrational stabs in the dark"? Do you mean without basis (in which case can that be classed as scientific)?

I would have thought that scientific thought wasn't as broad as rational thought as scientific thought is restricted by the scientific method which defines it.

The scientific method is a process by which concepts are tested against reality. The scientific method itself is fully rational.

However, the concepts themselves may have been arrived at by irrational "intuition," or desperation, or those "eureka!" moments that are so commonly portrayed in popular culture but very rarely happen in real life. For instance, psychic research is the rational application of the scientific method to an irrational precept (that the human mind exhibits extra-body abilities).  The "science" part is perfectly valid, as long as it is conducted strictly to the scientific method. It's the subject that is irrational.

"Irrational concept" does not mean the concept is incorrect. It just means the concept has no supporting evidence, and is based on something other than strict logic. Sometimes this is because we haven't observed the supporting evidence; other times, the supporting evidence doesn't exist (in which case, the concept is wrong).

This is all part of scientific thought, which is distinct from the scientific method. Basically, the best scientists are creative, with active imaginations, as well as logical and careful and rational.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
There's an obvious truth

There's an obvious truth about science that a lot of people miss.  First, a little background so that you can put it in the correct context.  The scientific method was not invented.  It was discovered.  Like logic, it is simply a description of the way things work.  Logic is a description of the way we think.  That is, we move from premises to conclusions.  Logic can be valid or invalid, but it is still logic.  Likewise, our conclusions can be rational or irrational, but we are always using logic when we reach conclusions.  It is impossible to think and not use logic, insofar as deriving new information goes.  (Certainly picturing a fish, or a coke bottle, in your mind's eye isn't thinking logically.  However, if we were to mentally "do" anything with the bottle, that would involve logic. )

Similarly, when we use the scientific method, we're not doing something artificial.  We're simply operating within existing principles of the universe.  For us to know with reasonable certainty that something is true, we must use logic and/or science.  When you go to the grocery store and heft two different pieces of fruit to see which one is likely to be more ripe, you are using the scientific method.  Even when you eyeball them casually and make a guess you are still using the scientific method, only you're using it inefficiently.  You're making an empirical observation and applying it to a previously learned theory.

Like logic, science can be used loosely or precisely.  It all depends on the degree of certainty you want in your results.  So, here's the obvious truth that everybody seems to miss:  To say that something is non-scientific is to say that it is bad science.  The flip side is more compelling.  If the results are reliable, the method was good science.

All this hubbub you hear from different quacks advocating this or that alternative to scientific inquiry miss the point entirely.  There simply is no alternative to science, in the same way that there's no alternative to logic.  You're either doing science badly, or well, in the same way that your thinking is either logically valid or invalid.  The scientific method is no more or no less than the inescapable principles of logic applied to the inescapable principles of the material universe.

People have been using the scientific method since they started thinking.  As we've evolved and civilization has grown, we have learned how to be more accurate and more scientific, to the point where we can achieve virtual certainty in many of the sciences.  Philosophically, though, anytime anyone uses empirical observations to test and learn about the universe in any way, they're being scientists.  The only question is whether or not they're using reliable methodology or not.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Ali
Ali's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-04-09
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:The

nigelTheBold wrote:

The scientific method is a process by which concepts are tested against reality. The scientific method itself is fully rational.

However, the concepts themselves may have been arrived at by irrational "intuition," or desperation, or those "eureka!" moments that are so commonly portrayed in popular culture but very rarely happen in real life. For instance, psychic research is the rational application of the scientific method to an irrational precept (that the human mind exhibits extra-body abilities).  The "science" part is perfectly valid, as long as it is conducted strictly to the scientific method. It's the subject that is irrational.

"Irrational concept" does not mean the concept is incorrect. It just means the concept has no supporting evidence, and is based on something other than strict logic. Sometimes this is because we haven't observed the supporting evidence; other times, the supporting evidence doesn't exist (in which case, the concept is wrong).

This is all part of scientific thought, which is distinct from the scientific method. Basically, the best scientists are creative, with active imaginations, as well as logical and careful and rational.

So science is fully rational but can be used to test irrational thoughts against observed reality... But I guess this is trivial as it is only the scientific thought that is in question.

So what is irrational thought? Is it illogical? Unscientific? An umbrella term for them both?


Ali
Ali's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:There's an

Hambydammit wrote:

There's an obvious truth about science that a lot of people miss.  First, a little background so that you can put it in the correct context.  The scientific method was not invented.  It was discovered.  Like logic, it is simply a description of the way things work.  Logic is a description of the way we think.  That is, we move from premises to conclusions.  Logic can be valid or invalid, but it is still logic.  Likewise, our conclusions can be rational or irrational, but we are always using logic when we reach conclusions.  It is impossible to think and not use logic, insofar as deriving new information goes.  (Certainly picturing a fish, or a coke bottle, in your mind's eye isn't thinking logically.  However, if we were to mentally "do" anything with the bottle, that would involve logic. )

Similarly, when we use the scientific method, we're not doing something artificial.  We're simply operating within existing principles of the universe.  For us to know with reasonable certainty that something is true, we must use logic and/or science.  When you go to the grocery store and heft two different pieces of fruit to see which one is likely to be more ripe, you are using the scientific method.  Even when you eyeball them casually and make a guess you are still using the scientific method, only you're using it inefficiently.  You're making an empirical observation and applying it to a previously learned theory.

Like logic, science can be used loosely or precisely.  It all depends on the degree of certainty you want in your results.  So, here's the obvious truth that everybody seems to miss:  To say that something is non-scientific is to say that it is bad science.  The flip side is more compelling.  If the results are reliable, the method was good science.

All this hubbub you hear from different quacks advocating this or that alternative to scientific inquiry miss the point entirely.  There simply is no alternative to science, in the same way that there's no alternative to logic.  You're either doing science badly, or well, in the same way that your thinking is either logically valid or invalid.  The scientific method is no more or no less than the inescapable principles of logic applied to the inescapable principles of the material universe.

People have been using the scientific method since they started thinking.  As we've evolved and civilization has grown, we have learned how to be more accurate and more scientific, to the point where we can achieve virtual certainty in many of the sciences.  Philosophically, though, anytime anyone uses empirical observations to test and learn about the universe in any way, they're being scientists.  The only question is whether or not they're using reliable methodology or not.

 

 

Yes, I agree that scientific thought/method is just a named type of thought process...  using observed reality to confirm or identify patterns, and using these patterns to make predictions.

And you think its purely logical then?

 

I still haven't worked out where I'm going with this but I'm just trying to think out loud and see what others think.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Ali, science is simply the

Ali, science is simply the description of how knowledge of the material universe can be obtained.  It is a progression of steps, just like logic.  Also just like logic, steps can be done correctly or incorrectly.  If they're done incorrectly, your results are unreliable, and just like logic, we can literally say nothing about the results.  They may be true or false, and there's no way to know.

Correctly executed science is based on completely valid logic.

Rational and irrational describe a relationship to logic.  For logic to be invoked, there must be an argument.  So, rational and irrational, in the end, refer to a relationship with a conclusion.  In other words, if I hold up a rock and say, "This rock," my statement isn't particularly rational or irrational, outside of the fact that it appears to correspond to a known language and syntax structure.  However, if I say, "This rock has an elephant standing inside of it," and all available evidence indicates that there is no elephant standing inside of the rock, my statement is irrational with respect to the truth of its claim.  However, if you had previously asked me to speak a nonsense sentence, and that was my response, it's a perfectly rational response.

When I say, "There is an elephant standing in this rock," and I mean for you to believe it, there is an implied argument.  I am saying, "I have reasonable justification for saying there is an elephant in this rock."  Since there is clearly no evidence for my statement's truth, that premise is false:

Premise: I have evidence that there is an elephant in the rock

Conclusion: Therefore, I am justified in telling you that there is an elephant in this rock.

Invalid premise leads to irrational argument.

A lot of the problems with the words rational and irrational are that they can be used in different ways.  When I say, "That girl is being irrational.  She should dump her asshole boyfriend," I mean that from my perspective, there is no good reason for her to stay with her boyfriend.  However, that doesn't mean she is irrational, or for that matter, that even if by my criteria she is irrational, that her decision is actually irrational.  If someone believes they have accurate information, and makes a decision based on it, that decision is rational.  To an outside observer who knows that the information is inaccurate, the decision is irrational.  In other words, rational and irrational apply locally to arguments.  They are not inherent qualities, like "green" to a plant.  A belief, or a statement, or an action is only rational or irrational within a given context.

When we say that theism is irrational, what we mean is that the logic that leads to the conclusion that God exists is flawed, and the conclusion is irrational as a result.  This doesn't mean that every theist on the planet knows that the logic is bad.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yes, I agree that

Quote:

Yes, I agree that scientific thought/method is just a named type of thought process...  using observed reality to confirm or identify patterns, and using these patterns to make predictions.

And you think its purely logical then?

Looks like we overlapped posts.  Sorry.

Anyway, yes, the scientific method can be derived logically.  The major hurdle is what is often referred to as the Problem of Induction.  Briefly, there are two types of logic, deductive and inductive.  Syllogistic logic is deductive.  In other words, the following formula is 100% certain:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In other words, any time you use this logical formula, the result will be logically valid.  However, logical validity only means that IF the premises are true, THEN the conclusion will also be true.  That's where induction comes in.  With material reality, we can never have 100% certainty.  No matter how certain I feel that I am typing on my computer and sitting in my chair, I could be dreaming, or I could be mistaken.  There is always some doubt.

So, suppose we want to know something about the material universe.  The only thing we can do is build a case of probability.  Probability, as it turns out, is derived eventually from logic.  So, even though it sounds paradoxical, we can be certain that the laws of probability are certain, even though the outcomes of probability equations can never be certain.  What we're left with is a logical system by which we can assign mathematical precision to the probability that something is true, and this strength hinges on the probability that our data were correct, and our perceptions accurate, etc.

So, though science is always uncertain of its conclusions, the derivation of the methodology is derived from logically certain principles.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Ali wrote:So science is

Ali wrote:

So science is fully rational but can be used to test irrational thoughts against observed reality... But I guess this is trivial as it is only the scientific thought that is in question.

So what is irrational thought? Is it illogical? Unscientific? An umbrella term for them both?

As Hamby has pointed out, there is no distinction betwen "scientific thought" and just, "thought." The only distinction comes to the scientific ontology, which is the knowledge gained from the application of the scientific method to any concept.

"Scientific thought" is only distinct from other thoughts in our ability to apply the scientific method. We can have many ideas, but those ideas are only rational if we are able to sift them through the crucible of empiricism. An "irrational" concept is one that cannot be supported by the current ontology. That doesn't make it automatically incorrect. It simply means it isn't supported by current knowledge.

Rationality parallels scientific thought in its ability to be tested against reality. There are rational concepts that cannot currently be tested; further, there are irrational concepts that may turn out to be true. Their only metric is their congruence with reality.

"Irrational thought" is merely thought that is based on something other than empirical knowledge. Logic may apply, but it might be applied to something unobserved but intuited. This doesn't make it right; neither is it necessarily wrong. If it is testable against reality, then it is science. Otherwise, it is supposition, or worse, metaphysics.

Reality is the ultimate judement. If something is congruent with observed reality, it is ultimately rational. If it is incongruent with observed reailty, it is irrational. The only point of contention should concern what is "observed."

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
hypothetically

lets say I prayed for 100 things to come true. How many of them would have to come true for that prayer to be considered a rational approach to "contributing" to getting what I want. Lets say that there are perfect "controls" in place to measure how well they are being answered even though in practice this is never the case. Pretend that I dont "cheat" and adjust my actions as though it was a perfect double-blind study. In other words, "reasonable people" would say these prayers were answered. You can make up a hypothetical chi square test to find the probability that this is due to chance if that helps you explain it but its not necessary. Lets just say that a reasonable person would be surprised if 10 of these things came true in the manner that I asked them.

PS. you dont have to actually quote any studies since that is not what I am asking Smiling


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:lets say I prayed for

Quote:
lets say I prayed for 100 things to come true. How many of them would have to come true for that prayer to be considered a rational approach to "contributing" to getting what I want.

That's a great question.  Let me give you an idea of how to go about designing your experiment.

First, you're going to have to decide on a critical distinction.  Are you going to pray for things that are impossible without divine intervention, or are you going to pray for things that might happen anyway?  If you're going to pray for things that are impossible, you're not going to need all that much correlation.  Even one hit would be pretty impressive.

For instance, why don't you pray for Shelleymtjoy?  She's missing bones from from her legs.  If she woke up in the morning and had perfectly normal bones, that would be truly miraculous.  I'd be convinced by just that.  Bones don't come back overnight when they've been removed.  The classic example is amputees.  Why don't you get a thousand amputees together and pray for all of them to grow their limbs back.  If one of them does, that would pretty much prove that prayer had something to do with it.

Honestly, if you want to prove that prayer works, you need to pray for stuff that can't happen.  However, if you don't trust your god to actually do a real miracle, you could still get some impressive results with things that could happen anyway.  It's going to be a LOT harder, though.  First, you have to establish a control and an experimental group, and you need to pray for a very specific kind of result.  There actually was a study done just this way, by the Templeton Foundation.  That's a Christian organization that was trying to prove that prayer is effective for sick people.  It turns out, prayer was not only completely unhelpful, but among one group who knew they were being prayed for, there was apparently some performance anxiety, because they did slightly worse than people who were not being prayed for.  So, if you want to know how to design your test, you could use that as an example.  It was unfortunate for the Christians, because they designed the test well, and it showed them that prayer actually doesn't work.

In general, when we look at the reliability of a study, we look at the results, and try to figure out what the odds are that the results could be generated randomly.  If you get a result that's really impressive, say there's only a 0.01% chance that the result could be chance, you're still not home free.  Strictly speaking, no matter how uncertain an event is, a one time occurrence is not a reliable result.  That's why we make repeatability such a big deal.  So, here's the second problem you're going to run into with a test of things that might happen anyway.  You're going to need to repeat the test, and get a similar result.  You'll need to do this at least twice, maybe more, depending on the probability that random chance could be responsible for your first result.  Consider, if there's a 1 in 10 chance that the results are random, there would only be a 1 in 100 chance that two studies in a row would yield the same result.  In general, we want much better chance of real results... like 1 in 1000 or 10000, and then we want two or three consistent tests.  That way, we know with good probability that there's only about a one in a billion or so chance that it's a false result.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh... but you do realize

Oh... but you do realize that if you could prove that prayer worked, you wouldn't have proven the existence of god.  You'd have proven that prayer works.  Once you'd done that, you'd need to do lots of experiments to figure out why prayer worked.  For instance, is it possible that there is a form of energy we haven't encountered yet?  Is it finally evidence of ESP?  The most logical thing to do would be to repeat the test, each time praying to a specific deity, and for a control, praying not to a deity!  Perhaps it is the act of prayer itself.  If we prayed to a housecat in Guam and it still worked, we'd have some idea that it was the prayer, not who was being prayed to.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism