LOGIC AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD

A paper submitted and presented as fulfillment of assignment for Philosophy

The lecturer: H. Agus Ahmad Su’aidi, MA.

Presented by:

Agus Zainuri (11211019)

Idris Bahtiar (11211020)

INTERNATIONAL CLASS

STATE INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES OF

SALATIGA

2012

1

A. What is logic?

1. A preliminary definition

The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos, which is sometimes

translated as "sentence", "discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio". Of course,

these translations are not enough to help us understand the more specialized

meaning of "logic" as it is used today.

So what is logic? Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study

of the principles of correct reasoning. This is a rough definition, because how

logic should be properly defined is actually quite a controversial matter.

However, for the purpose of this tour, we thought it would be useful to give

you at least some rough idea as to the subject matter that you will be studying.

So this is what we shall try to do on this page.

2. Logic is not the psychology of reasoning

One thing you should note about this definition is that logic is

concerned with the principles of correct reasoning. Studying the correct

principles of reasoning is not the same as studying the psychology of

reasoning. Logic is the former discipline, and it tells us how we ought to

reason if we want to reason correctly. Whether people actually follow these

rules of correct reasoning is an empirical matter, something that is not the

concern of logic.

The psychology of reasoning, on the other hand, is an empirical

science. It tells us about the actual reasoning habits of people, including their

mistakes. A psychologist studying reasoning might be interested in how

people's ability to reason varies with age. But such empirical facts are of no

concern to the logician.

3. The principles of logic

So what are these principles of reasoning that are part of logic? There

are many such principles, but the main (not the only) thing that we study in

2

logic are principles governing the validity of arguments - whether certain

conclusions follow from some given assumptions. For example, consider the

following three arguments:

If Tom is a philosopher, then Tom is poor.

Tom is a philosopher.

Therefore, Tom is poor.

If K>10, then K>2.

K>10.

Therefore, K>2.

If Tarragona is in Europe, then Tarragona is not in China.

Tarragona is in Europe.

Therefore, Tarragona is not in China.

These three arguments here are obviously good arguments in the sense

that their conclusions follow from the assumptions. If the assumptions of the

argument are true, the conclusion of the argument must also be true. A

logician will tell us that they are all cases of a particular form of argument

known as "modus ponens" 1

B. WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

The method of science is free from the limitations and willfulness of

the alternative methods for settling doubt which we there rejected. Scientific

1 http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php

3

method, we declared, is the most assured technique man has yet devised for

controlling the flux of things and establishing stable beliefs.2

Let us in this chapter bring together the more important threads of our

discussions.

1. Facts and Scientific Method3

a. Consequently, scientific method aims to discover what the facts truly

are, and the use of the method must be guided by the discovered facts.

But, as we have repeatedly pointed out, what the facts are cannot be

discovered without reflection.

b. Every inquiry arises from some felt problem, so that no inquiry can

even get under way unless some selection or sifting of the subject

matter has taken place.

c. The ability to formulate problems whose solution may also help solve

other problems is a rare gift, requiring extraordinary genius.

d. The "facts" for which every inquiry reaches out are propositions for

whose truth there is considerable evidence. Consequently what the

"facts" are must be determined by inquiry, and cannot be determined

antecedently to inquiry.

2. Hypotheses and Scientific Method4

a. Hypotheses are suggested to an inquirer by something in the subject

matter under investigation, and by his previous knowledge of other

subject matters.

b. Hypotheses are required at, every stage of ~an~ inquiry, It must not be

forgotten that what are called general principles or laws(which may

2MORRIS R. COHEN and ERNEST NAGEL, Introduction to logic and scientific method. NEW

YORK AND BURLINGAME: 1934, 391.

3 Ibid, 392

4 Ibid.

4

have been confirmed in a previous inquiry) can be applied to a present,

still unterminated inquiry only with some risk.

c. Hypotheses can be regarded as suggestions of possible connections

between actual facts or imagined ones.

d. The number of hypotheses which may occur to an inquirer is without

limit, and is a function of the character of his imagination.

e. It is convenient to have on hand in storage, so to speak different

hypotheses whose consequences have been carefully explored.

f. The deductive elaboration of hypotheses is not the sole task of

scientific method.

g. No hypothesis which states a general proposition can be demonstrated

as absolutely true. We have seen that all inquiry which deals with

matters of fact employs probable inference.

3. Evidence and Scientific Method5

a. Science is not satisfied with psychological certitude, for the mere

intensity with which a belief is held is no guarantee of its truth.

b. No single proposition dealing with matters of fact is beyond every

significant doubt. No proposition is so well supported by evidence that

other evidence may not increase or decrease its probability.

c. Science is thus always ready to abandon a theory when the facts so

demand. But the facts must really demand it. It is not unusual for a

theory to be modified so that it may be retained in substance even

though "facts" contradicted an earlier formulation of it.

d. The verification of theories is only approximate. Verification simply

shows that, within the margin of experimental error, the experiment is

compatible with the verified hypothesis.

5 Ibid, 394

5

4. System in the Ideal of Science6

The ideal of science is to achieve a systematic interconnection of

facts. Isolated propositions do not constitute a science. Such propositions

serve merely as an opportunity to find the logical connection between them

and other propositions.

“Common sense” is content with a miscellaneous collection of

information. As a consequence, the propositions it asserts are frequently

vague, the range of their application is unknown, and their mutual

compatibility is generally very questionable. The advantages of discovering

a system among facts is therefore obvious. A condition for achieving a

system is the introduction of accuracy in the assertions made. The limit

within which propositions are true is then clearly defined. Moreover,

inconsistencies between propositions asserted become eliminated gradually

because propositions which are part of a system must support and correct

one another. The extent and accuracy of our information is thus increased.

In fact, scientific method differs from other methods in the accuracy and

number of facts it studies.

5. Empirical

Science is based purely around observation and measurement, and

the vast majority of research involves some type of practical

experimentation.

This can be anything, from measuring the Doppler Shift of a distant

galaxy to handing out questionnaires in a shopping center. This may sound

obvious, but this distinction stems back to the time of the Ancient Greek

Philosophers.

6 Ibid, 395

6

Cutting a long story short, Plato believed that all knowledge could be

reasoned; Aristotle that knowledge relied upon empirical observation and

measurement.

This does bring up one interesting anomaly. Strictly speaking, the

great physicists, such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking, are not scientists.

They generate sweeping and elegant theories and mathematical models to

describe the universe and the very nature of time, but measure nothing.

In reality, they are mathematicians, occupying their own particular

niche, and they should properly be referred to as theoreticians.

Still, they are still commonly referred to as scientists and do touch

upon the scientific method in that any theory they have can be destroyed by

a single scrap of empirical evidence.7

7 http://explorable.com/what-is-the-scientific-method.html

7

CONCLUTION

Logic is a domain of philosophy concerned with rational criteria that applies

to argumentation. Logic includes a study of argumentation within natural language,

consistent reasoning, valid argumentation, and errors in reasoning. It is divided into

two main domains: Formal and informal logic.

The scientific method, as defined by various scientists and philosophers, has a

fairly rigorous structure that should be followed.

In reality, apart from a few strictly defined physical sciences, most scientific

disciplines have to bend and adapt these rules, especially sciences involving the

unpredictability of natural organisms and humans.

In many ways, it is not always important to know the exact scientific method,

to the letter, but any scientist should have a good understanding of the underlying

principles.

In many ways, if you are going to bend and adapt the rules, you need to

understand the rules in the first place.

8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MORRIS R. COHEN and ERNEST NAGEL. (1934). Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method.

EARCOTJRT, BRACE & WORLD, INC,.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php

http://explorable.com/what-is-the-scientific-method.html