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

Without reading philosophy with a logical mindset the ideas of the philosopher will not connect with the reader. The essay The Scope of Logic the author tells us that “Outside of logic books, we should not expect to find arguments expressed in this near form. We must learn to recognize arguments when they occur in ordinary prose, for they are not usually set off in the middle of the page and labeled” (Salmon 48). This quote shows that a reader must think critically in order to be able to fully understand the

The scientific revolution established the new view of the universe. During this period people were finally beginning to define the scientific method and apply it to search for the truth. The scientific ideas of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries overturned many of the most fundamental ideas of the medieval worldview. New knowledge of the physical world provided occasions for challenging the authority of the church and of scripture. The new ideas then began to displace and reshape religious models of thought. Even though the scientific revolution exposed humankind to the truths of the world, the new science posed a potential challenge to religion.

Within philosophy, there has long been a question about the relationship between science and religion. These two systems of human experience have undoubtedly had a lot of influence in the course of mankind’s development. The philosopher Ian Barbour created a taxonomy regarding science and religion that has become widely influential. His taxonomy postulates that there are four ways in which science and religion are thought to interact. The four categories are: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. By using articles from a select few philosophers, theologians, and scientists, it is clear to see the ways in which these two systems of human experience are categorized in the four categories presented by Ian barbour. However, it will be apparent that the category of conflict may be seen as the most dominant in regard to the interaction between science and religion.

on the ability of the thinker to be able to successfully think logically. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, logic is defined as "the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference."

John William Draper, in the History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, states, “The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.” John William Draper brings up a strong truth behind the progression of science. Human faith inevitably conflicts with the progression of science. One may think that religion is the moral part of human belief and science is the advancement of intellect. It is inevitable that morals and the advancement of intellect would. Emotions and morals sometimes may overpower what the advancement of science would lead to. This concept is present in the ethical controversy involved with the Catholic Church and stem cell research. The moral and heart of many members of the Catholic Church easily disables the acceptance and support of stem cell research. This is unfortunate because stem cell usage and research has tremendous potential in helping those that suffer from disease. Stem cell research will advance medical fields and assist in finding cures for deadly ailments. Many followers of the Catholic Church view the science of stem cell research as killing innocent lives, however a sense of the faithful needs to come into action in order to look passed tradition and history to

Summer for the Gods concentrates on the Dayton, Tennessee Scopes trial, or "Monkey Trial," of 1925. The trial was over a Tennessee law that banned teaching evolution in public schools. The American Civil Liberties Union protested the law with teacher, John Scopes, who agreed to help. The"trial of the century" brought together two famous political enemies, William Jennings Bryan, who led the anti-evolution crusade, and Clarence Darrow, who was known as the best criminal defense lawyer and evolution supporter. The author presents the history of controversy that led to the trial. Fossil discoveries, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and increased attendance in public high schools influenced the anti-evolution movement due to the

On the Logic vs. Faith aspect, Ian J. spoke on the differences between the two which had altered his point of view. He spoke about logic being science based which he leaned more towards and not as much as faith being, not proven. Brian Weiss expressed his point of view as, “I was becoming a scientist, and learning to think in a logical, this passionate, “prove it” kind of way” (P,4/17).I

Is there a conflict between religion and science, or are both items compatible? This question is addressed in the debate that is written about in the book Science and Religion, Are they Compatible, by Daniel C. Dennett and Alvin Plantinga. Alvin Plantinga thoroughly debates the topic by covering the compatibility of Christianity and science. He continues his argument by stating the issue of naturalist and science harbor the conflict not the theism. Plantinga goes into detail how some scientific theories without the help of theism has conflict and should be considered falsifiable because of the contradictions they possess. While Alvin Plantinga does make a prominent effort to illustrate how religion and science are compatible, there are also

Factual consistency is another reason for why natural sciences are considered to be smarter than social sciences. Since birth individuals’ ideas and beliefs have been constantly changing. As a child someone may believe that what they want to be when they grow up is a super star or a racecar driver. Then the same individual as a teenager may think they want to be a doctor or a teacher. Several years later that same individual works in real estate. This same idea can be applied to almost everything throughout a human’s life. Because of this it us difficult for natural scientists to create lasting definitions or ideas. Natural science have been held to a higher standard because natural science facts rarely change. An example of this is that the

All that I have ever known and believed in is now being questioned. It is transitioning into some sort of enormous trial – between religion and science. I have been taught to accept the religious, social, and political ideas that the Catholic Church has devised upon the world. For years, humans have believed and used Aristotle’s theory which explained Earth’s position in the universe. By the geocentric theory, Earth was said to be located at the center of the universe. The moon, the sun, and the other planets would orbit around Earth. Christianity supported these theories and used them to educate people around the world. Recently, there have been new discoveries and theories that have been proposed by countless amounts of scientists,

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.

Laudan (1983) claimed that the problem of demarcation can be traced back to ancient Greece and Aristotle. Aristotle asserted that from general laws one can deduce scientific theories that are consequently truthful statements. Pseudoscientific theories according to Aristotle are not deductively formulated and therefore cannot be considered scientific. However this method of demarcation is flawed: pseudosciences such as astrology can be vacuously true and most are reluctant to say astrology is scientific. We can already see from this early stage that the distinctions between science and pseudoscience are murky and the formulation of demarcation can be challenging.

Science is flawed because people are flawed. Therefore our definition of science, along with its qualities for which we identify science with, is rational. However, the way we do science exhibits traces of irrationality.

Alan Francis Chalmers is an associate professor who works extensive in the history and philosophy of science (physical). Alan Chalmers has taught at the University of Sydney since 1971, first in the School of Philosophy, and from 1987 at the Unit for the History and Philosophy of Science. He attained a B.Sc. in physics at the University of Bristol, and his M.Sc. in physics from the University of Manchester. His Ph.D. on the electromagnetic theory of J.C. Maxwell was granted by the University of London. He was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Humanities in 1997. He has been a Visiting Scholar at the Flinders Philosophy Department since 1999.

Disagreement may aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences because disagreement leads to new discoveries. Disagreement is about gathering reliable knowledge as well as using this newfound knowledge, and occurs when a group fails to reach a consensus over the logic of an argument. Knowledge is composed of facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. Two areas of knowledge that are impacted by disagreement are human science and natural science. Human science is the study of human behavior and how humans gather information. Natural science is a branch of science that deals with the physical world. In order for a disagreement to occur, one must be familiar with the subject and have his or her own prediction that is different from the norm. Therefore, to advance knowledge in the areas of human and natural science, people must disagree. The roles of logic, reason, and emotion will be investigated to see how they are used to help gain new knowledge in both human and natural science.