Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Knowing that logic being a product of pure reason is non-empirical, and knowing that empiricism excludes the possibility of acquiring knowledge by non-empirical means. How can logic be true by an empiricist perspective ? Are logic and empiricism mutually exclusive ? How they can be made more compatible ?

While logic is valuable, a conclusion based solely on logic is only valid if all factors abide by the same logic, or at least the logic rules are all understood. Thus logic does not necessitate a correct conclusion, only a logical conclusion.

Pure logic is not logical.

Logic can come from empirical evidence.
EX:
Basin A has 1 cup of water.
Basin B has 2 cups of water.
Basin B has more water than Basin A.

Its a very basic example but as you can see, one can make logical inferences based on evidence that has been proven empirically.

Originally posted by Marxman
Logic can come from empirical evidence.
EX:
Basin A has 1 cup of water.
Basin B has 2 cups of water.
Basin B has more water than Basin A.

Its a very basic example but as you can see, one can make logical inferences based on evidence that has been proven empirically. Unless the cups used in basin B are half the size of the cup used in basin A.

Originally posted by Regret
Unless the cups used in basin B are half the size of the cup used in basin A.

What if the water in basin A was H2O, but the water in basin B was D2O, could you really say that basin B had twice the water then basin A?

Logic is just an educated guess based off of what you know prior to making the logical decision. Empiricism has to be off evidence where no other variables are changed but what you are trying to find out.

They cant come together except in a computer. Unless you are a cyborg genius.

Originally posted by Regret
Unless the cups used in basin B are half the size of the cup used in basin A. A cup is a unit of measurement. They're all the same.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if the water in basin A was H2O, but the water in basin B was D2O, could you really say that basin B had twice the water then basin A? Huh?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Pure logic is not logical.

How so?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Knowing that logic being a product of pure reason is non-empirical, and knowing that empiricism excludes the possibility of acquiring knowledge by non-empirical means. How can logic be true by an empiricist perspective ? Are logic and empiricism mutually exclusive ? How they can be made more compatible ?
They are already pretty darn compatible, which certainly means they are not mutually exclusive. Our modern civilization, dominated by science and technology, is proof.

But that's in practice. In theory, there appear to be philosophical / conceptual conundrums.

Originally posted by Marxman
A cup is a unit of measurement. They're all the same. Not necessarily.

A cup is a unit of measurement, but when cooking I have a container that is ~1 cup. I use this container to measure for most recipes. I also have found that some recipes require "a cup" of something, but the recipe may call for packed, heaping, sifted, or some other requirement. Also, sometimes "a cup" is slightly more or less to achieve the desired taste.

Units of measurement are relative to the people measuring. An excellent example is the cubit. A cubit is a unit of measurement described as the length of the forearm, elbow to end of middle finger. This measurement holds great possibility of variability.

A meter is defined as the distance light can travel in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. Previously it was defined by a prototype bar that was marked at what would be considered a meter. The meter itself has become more exact, but a meter still holds a level of uncertainty.

All units of measure are variable on some level, that is why all technical drawings and plans are plus or minus some acceptable level of variability.

The exact amount of water in a cup is variable to some extremely minor degree. Even evaporation must be considered.

Empiricism would state that it is nearly impossible for 1 cup of water measured to be the exact same as the next cup of water measured, thus your logical statement that 1 cup of water is the same as another 1 cup of water is not empirically correct. But, given this new information the logical statement would change and thus may prove to be empirical.

I present this because empirically logic is not always fact. Logic is a tool to be used in empirical research, but logic itself is not necessarily empirical. There is no conflict between the two unless one assumes that logic itself is always empirical.

Originally posted by Mindship
In theory, there appear to be philosophical / conceptual conundrums.

Thats what I was thinking. They work in pratice but formally they seem to be incompatible. Science normally emphasize a formal, mathematical way of thinking. So perhaps that is a problem to be considered. Perhaps a problem for the philosophy of science.

My personal view is that the epistemological limits of science should be reviewed to answer that problem.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats what I was thinking. They work in pratice but formally they seem to be incompatible. Science normally emphasize a formal, mathematical way of thinking. So perhaps that is a problem to be considered. Perhaps a problem for the philosophy of science.

My personal view is that the epistemological limits of science should be reviewed to answer that problem.

I think the problem (at least in part) lies in the philosophy of radical empiricism (or scientism). The edict, "Only empirical evidence counts," is self-contradicting, as there is no empirical proof of the meaning of that sentence.