Pure Logic vs. Scientific Logic

“Reasoning is an art, and reasoning about the natural world is the art that lies at the base of science” (Castel and Sismondo 55). Pure logic is “a form of reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity” (Oxford Dictionaries). In contrast, scientific logic is a form of reasoning in which a logical thought process is used to conduct experiments and research in order to reach a valid conclusion. Altogether, pure and scientific logic are different forms of reasoning used to solve everyday problems in life; yet, it is ‘scientific logic’ that is more prevalent in solving everyday problems, including critical interpretations of major problems on earth. Scientific logic is the best choice to cope with life problems in the midst of global issues; it helps facilitate our logical expertise in daily matters; it is both predictable and reliable; and on a greater scale, scientific logic helps us deal with the widespread problems on earth.

With the growth of science and new emerging technologies, life is becoming more complicated, therefore relying purely on logic is insufficient. “Most of the time very little follows logically from what we know, and when we think that it does we learn that most of our knowledge consists of generalizations that don’t hold 100 percent of the time” (Castel and Sismondo 71). People live in a world of probability and because “scientific reasoning develops over time,” (Castel and Sismondo 74) they are more inclined to apply this approach towards greater decision-making. Evidence of the role of scientific reasoning can be seen in dietary control. People know from a logical basis that consuming too much food regularly can lead to an increase in body weight. On the fundamental basis, scientific reasoning explains that the extra calories gained from consuming food equates to a greater concentration of fatty acids and water retention, which altogether cause humans to gain weight. Excessive weight can eventually lead to obesity, which is a major health problem in North America (ScienceDaily, “Increased Food Intake”). Similarly, when we are feeling ill, logical reasoning influences our decisions to see a doctor; however it is the use of scientific reasoning that doctors utilize to interpret our illness and provide an effective treatment with the proper diagnosis.

Scientific reasoning serves as a backbone to help us acquire logical expertise via deductive reasoning. In fact, research has shown that people have a limited competence, which is helpful in everyday life and a prerequisite to acquire logical expertise. However, acquiring logical expertise is not possible without forming deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning facilitates our abilities to acquire logical expertise by providing us with factual knowledge, formal rules, or mental models, all of which become useful in reasoning (Johnson-Laird, “Deductive Reasoning”). Hence, humans rely on deductive reasoning to manage both their every day and major problems.

Scientific reasoning is always reliable and predictable. For instance, “once the scientific community has reached substantial agreement on some issue, it has become extremely difficult to locate gaps in its thinking, extremely difficult to question its patterns of reasoning” (Castel and Sismondo 56). Conversely, logical reasoning is both unreliable and unpredictable in solving everyday problems. “Pure logic on the other hand, is by itself quite useless. Logic is self-contained, and doesn`t by itself hook onto the material world” (Castel and Sismondo 71).

On a larger scale, issues such as global warming require significant scientific research and observations in order to reach an explanation of the consequences of certain environmental changes. The methods of scientists are designed to be functional; for most scientists, the main goal is to find the truth (Rusbult, “Introduction to Scientific Method”). Unknown factors such as global warming cannot be explained by applying a pure-logic approach and require extensive research by means of scientific experimentation to determine the root of the problem and expose the truth behind the unexplained phenomenon.

In today’s world, both pure and scientific logic work interdependently to resolve the issues in our lives whether it is on a daily basis or on a larger scale. However, it is scientific logic that prevails in providing us with the best interpretation of our problems. At the end of the day, it is scientific logic that tells us the way the world really is rather than the way we think the world is (Rusbult, “Introduction to Scientific Method”). The link between pure and scientific logic is one that will continue to support our judgements in life though our use of these methods are only relevant depending on the type of situation we are presented with. In my opinion, if scientific logic was never to be used, then we would be clueless on the situation at hand resulting in very difficult progression of our lives. Being dependent purely on logic would make us limited in our ability to comprehend and make decisions that will benefit mankind.

Bibliography (MLA)

* Castel, Boris, and Sergio Sismondo. The Art of Science. University of Toronto Press, 2008. Print.

* "Definition of logic in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)." Oxford Dictionaries Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eng

* European Association for the Study of Obesity. “Increased Food Intake Alone Explains Rise In Obesity In United States, Study Finds. “ ScienceDaily, 8 May 2009. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

* Johnson-Laird, P. "Deductive Reasoning." Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1999): 109-35. ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source. 27 Feb. 2013.

* Rusbult, Craig. "Introduction to Scientific Method - Theories with Reality Checks."American Scientific Affiliation. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/scientific-method.htm>.

The Dispute of Evolution

In definition, “a theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation” (Holman, Why Evolution Is Still A Theory). Darwin’s theory of evolution, which discusses natural selection, has been subject to experimentation for over 100 years since Charles Darwin’s death and is still facing some level of controversy (Holman, Why Evolution Is Still A Theory). Many dispute its validity using Lord Kevin’s law of thermodynamics, Carl von Nageli’s assertions on the selection of variations and religious conceptions.

Firstly, Lord Kevin’s second law of thermodynamics opposed this theory as he stated that the world was only a few million years old and Darwin’s theory need far more than 100 million years (Castel and Sismondo 60). According to Kevin’s calculations, the world was at most 100 million years and during this time it would have been far too hot to sustain life (Castel and Sismondo 60). Also, geology and biology were weaker sciences than physics so until someone could find an error in Kevin’s objection, the argument remained (Castel and Sismondo 60). However, the discovery of radioactivity, in the early 20th century, destroyed Lord Kevin’s calculations of thermodynamics as the world indeed required a much longer time to cool down (Castel and Sismondo 61).

Furthermore, Carl von Nageli argued that Darwin’s theory only explained how useful variations were selected and how harmful variations were selected against (Castel and Sismondo 61). Darwin’s theory didn’t consider characteristics that were neither useful nor harmful and for this reason, his theory faced much dispute. Even Darwin himself admitted that after this argument, he perhaps attributed too much to the action of natural selection or survival of the fittest. Nevertheless, Darwin’s theory survived as biologists eventually found adaptive values in features they formerly thought valueless (Castel and Sismondo 66).
Finally, there are those who reject science due to their religious beliefs. Modern science, many a times, contradicts religious beliefs (Dayson pp. 308). Darwinian evolution constantly faces criticism from Christians, who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis (Biema, “God vs. Science”). Moreover, it is to some religious believers that a divine hand shaped the events that took place over the course of life’s evolution. In general, most religions have an account of the origin of the world that is not compatible with evolution. Scientists on the other hand, are not in favor of the realm of science because of its process being silent and unnoticeable (ThinkQuest, “Religion and Evolution”). Religion is entirely measured upon belief whereas evolution is measurable through the means of scientific experimentation and observation. It is the separation between the scientific community and spiritual world that continues to spark the ongoing debate regarding the validity of evolution. In my opinion, people would not give up their religious faith for a subject that they have little knowledge of and which has yet to be proven.
Although most biologists will agree that natural selection and Darwin’s theory of evolution “is the only principle needed to explain the entire history of life on earth” (Castel and Sismondo 59), there will always be debate regarding the validity of his theory. The criticisms from scientists such as Lord Kevin and Carl von Nageli are a few examples of which society uses to support their arguments against the theory of evolution. Religion and a lack of general understanding of evolution will continually act as barriers preventing this subject from gaining complete acknowledgment from the world. Hence, the theory of evolution may play a large factor in explaining how evolution came to be but because people have different opinions and education with regards to this subject, disputes will continue.

Bibliography (MLA)

* Castel, Boris, and Sergio Sismondo. The Art of Science. University of Toronto Press, 2008. Print.

* Biema, David Van. "God vs. Science - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. N.p., 6 Nov. 2006. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article

* Dyson, Freeman. The Scientist as a Rebel. New York Review of Books, 2008. Print.

* Holman, Adrian. "Why Evolution Is Still A Theory ." All Voices. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11837410-why-evolution-is-still-a-theory

* "Religion and Evolution." ThinkQuest : Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/ph