The Difference between Pure Logic and Scientific Logic and Its Relation to the Problems on Earth

1538 Words Jan 9th, 2018 6 Pages
Is there a difference between pure logic and scientific logic? Which one, in your opinion, is more useful to solve our everyday problems in life? Is it also the case for major problems on Earth? Can you give some examples?: The problem of logic is the same problem of truth that today's scientists, philosophers, academics and thinkers of all kind face. Since the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, several evolutions in scientific/philosophic schools have occurred. One of them is the advancement of subjectivity over objectivity, thanks in large part to the philosophy of Kant, who simply advanced the already widening gap between the old world of understood universals (prior to Occam) and the new world in which universals could not be "proven" (Weaver, 1984, p. 8). The new world was a world of empirical analysis. The old world (Aristotelian, if you will) way of arriving at truth was by means of the intellect. With the Rationalists, the Skeptics, the Subjectivists and the Modernists, the intellect's ability to arrive at truth was doubted; truth, the modern era generally asserted, could only be reached through empiricism. Thus, the term "pure logic," which must refer ultimately to both inductive and deductive reasoning as well as the intellect's ability to arrive at truth, was put at odds with "scientific logic," which depended wholly upon empirical data as can be seen in any graduate studies program. While there is something to be said for both "pure…
Open Document