The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Science can violate logic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,443 times Debate No: 117770
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Just browse and see.

https://www. Quora. Com/Does-science-ever-violate-any-laws-of-Logic


I accept this debate and await Pro to make a case supporting the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1


I already gave you some arguments, But since you're being stubborn. . .

1. In a sense, Science does violate our logic, But it also brings us to a more reasonable one. Let me explain: lately, Most of my answers have been revolved around the idea that we can never understand what truly is logical or the logical essence of the thing we are trying to comprehend. Here"s a brief explanation that I wrote in a previous answer:
" All thought is anthropomorphic", Is a truism which I have been using a lot in my answers lately. To put it simply, Our human minds are limited to human understanding, Which is not the best highest level of understanding there is.
If I ask you to imagine what a dog is thinking, You would probably, Without noticing, Attribute thoughts that are human to the dog, Because that is our limit. Just as a monkey won't comprehend philosophical ideas and complex linguistic patterns, We humans have our limits to what we can comprehend.
So by understanding that we have limited logic in both comprehension and reason, We must abdicate the idea that logic is the best way to understand the world. Our logic can be the most reasonable of most creatures we know of and it can bring us closer to what the logic of the thing we want to understand truly is, But at the same time, We can never be sure.

We get closer to a more reasonable logic by knowledge and therefore by science we break what we previously deemed logical.


At 1500 BC: Mercury, A heavily poisonous and dangerous element, Was used as an ailment and cure to many diseases. It seemed logical to Qin Shi Huang that mercury could provide him with eternal life, Which had the completely opposite effect. And here"s a more recent one: heroin, Which wreaks havoc and danger wherever it lands, Was hailed as a medical drug that could be used for multiple diseases. We can never understand true logic, So we settle with whatever we deem as logical at a certain point of time. At certain points of time we had deemed peculiar things as logical and rational and at those points science violated our laws of logic by creating new ones.

2. It all depends on definitions. In general, Scientists do not violate the laws of logic, But which logic is applicable is always a matter of concern. There is no one logic. There is propositional logic, Intuitionistic logic, Fuzzy logic, First-order logic, Higher-order logic, Modal logics, Etc. Which one is applicable in a particular situation can be a matter concern. However, In general argumentation, Classical proposition or first-order logic is adhered to. Where scientists can seemingly violate logic (but really don"t) is when they base arguments on false premises that fall outside the realm of logic (e. G. Phlogiston, Ether, Etc. ).

3. Sometimes science doesn"t seem to make sense. We all have preconceived notions about how the universe works, Usually based on what we"ve been taught, Or what we"ve observed with our own senses, And sometimes a scientific discovery or theory seems to violate those notions. But if we are doing science right, This dissonance is simply a temporary condition: eventually, Science will collect the necessary data to confirm or refute the theory, And we"ll be able to say, "Ok, That makes sense now. "

Consider the retrograde motion of planets: What is retrograde motion? | EarthSky. Org. To our eyes, Other planets" paths through the sky seem to include slowing, Stopping, And reversing course. When our science was limited by imperfect theories about how planets traveled around the sun, It seemed like science was giving us bad information. As we learned more about the true nature of planetary motion, Our theories changed, And we became better able to explain what we saw.

So if science tells you that a coin flipped 100 times will fall heads-side-up about 50% of the time, But your experience with a particular coin is 75 heads and 25 tails, You may have to carefully examine your tools (the coin) and your assumptions (the coin is equally weighted on both sides), And you"ll find that the science is good, And explains your experience just fine once you know the true value of all the variables.

4. Well, Right at the outset I need to discriminate between scientists and science as a whole.

But first, Some focus on the word violate. Not all logical mistakes, Even important ones, Are violations, Unless you impose a paralyzing rigor. The 20th-century effort to put mathematics and logic on an ultimate logical foundation has, In my opinion, Pretty much been a failure. We need to acknowledge that one of the strengths of human reasoning is that it proceeds with only approximate and relative certainty.

So, Based on that qualification, I will address myself to mistakes rather than violations.

And, Yes, Scientists make mistakes all the time. Sometimes they catch themselves at it right away. Sometimes it takes just a bit of discussion among team members. Sometimes mistakes make it to the level of peer review either prior to or after formal publication. Occasionally, Mistakes take generations to surface.

These mistakes are sometimes merely a matter of the abstractions chosen to frames the questions addressed, And that can be a subtle thing.

5. The observations of science are data and thus there is no logic or not associated with them. Some theories are thought by some to be illogical when they merely conflict with someone's alleged common sense. Many confuse math, Which is logical, With logic. Science can be reduced at times to specific math, And therefore a specific logic, But that's as far as you can stretch it.

6. There are no "Laws of Logic".

Logic is merely a formalized method of determining the validity of an argument. One can certainly use the principles of logical analysis to examine an argument that deals with some scientific finding or other, But the same principles are applicable to *any* sort of argument "

An argument can be determined invalid (or illogical), But you can"t "break" the principles.

7. There really are no "Laws of Logic". There are rules. Syllogisms. Typically framed by human beings. There are different types of logic too. Entirely different systems of logic which are not necessarily compatible.

Science has no such need to obey any such "logical" rules as framed by people.

8. There is a famous law of nature saying "Order out of Chaos". Does it conform or violate logic?

Nevertheless, The nature seems to operate exactly that way. There comes out order when seemingly everything is in Chaos.

In fact, Quantum Mechanics is a manifestation of that particular law of the nature because everything is described by probability, That means Nothing is Certain, Yet the universe seems going on pretty well and orderly.

9. For the lay-man, Sure; imagine them incomprehensible formulas"

10. Science violates logic all the time.


After careful consultation between the side of Con's members, We have opted for a 'snowball strategy'. This was already planned from Round 1 but we were planning to hit hard in Round 2 and see where things go but the strategy has changed as we want to win with as little friction as possible with the enemy and as much ease as possible with the voters.
  1. Science is an inanimate, Non-sentient entity that cannot violate anything.
  2. If you have incorrect input (corrupt data) and valid logic, You are not violating logic by reaching a wrong conclusion.
  3. If you have correct input (valid data) and corrupt logic, You are violating logic but are also violating scientific methodology in doing so.
  4. If you have corrupt data and corrupt logic, You can reach both a wrong and right conclusion but this is bad science in all senses and so thus you are violating science and it is not science violating the logic.
  5. If you have valid data and valid logic and reach a conclusion that is later proven wrong, You were completely logical and simply lacked enough information which would have violated logic to have leaped to the 'right' conclusion and this is why science uses theories and even its 'laws' are always up for question if later data disproves them.
I will state those 5 and not expand on them and prove the resolution entirely wrong for now.

If Pro is both scientifically sound and logically valid, They will forfeit here and now and hand me the win (I'd appreciate a typed out concession because letting the timer run down will refuse me the physical win).
Debate Round No. 2


Fine I concede.


Thank you for being noble in your defeat.

Credit to [https://undsci. Berkeley. Edu/article/howscienceworks_07] for the following:
"The Logic of Scientific Arguments

Taken together, The expectations generated by a scientific idea and the actual observations relevant to those expectations form what we'll call a scientific argument. This is a bit like an argument in a court case — a logical description of what we think and why we think it. A scientific argument uses evidence to make a case for whether a scientific idea is accurate or inaccurate. For example, The idea that illness in new mothers can be caused by doctors' dirty hands generates the expectation that illness rates should go down when doctors are required to wash their hands before attending births. When this test was actually performed in the 1800s, The results matched the expectations, Forming a strong scientific argument in support of the idea — and hand-washing!

Though the elements of a scientific argument (scientific idea, Expectations generated by the idea, And relevant observations) are always related in the same logical way, In terms of the process of science, Those elements may be assembled in different orders. Sometimes the idea comes first and then scientists go looking for the observations that bear on it. Sometimes the observations are made first, And they suggest a particular idea. Sometimes the idea and the observations are already out there, And someone comes along later and figures out that the two might be related to one another.

Testing ideas with evidence may seem like plain old common sense — and at its core, It is! — but there are some subtleties to the process:

  • Ideas can be tested in many ways. Some tests are relatively straightforward (e. G. , Raising 1000 fruit flies and counting how many have red eyes), But some require a lot of time (e. G. , Waiting for the next appearance of Halley's Comet), Effort (e. G. , Painstakingly sorting through thousands of microfossils), And/or the development of specialized tools (like a particle accelerator). To explore further, Jump to Tactics for testing.

  • Evidence can reflect on ideas in many different ways. To explore further, Jump to Reviewing your test results.

  • There are multiple lines of evidence and many criteria to consider in evaluating an idea. To explore further, Jump to Competing ideas: A perfect fit for the evidence? or Competing ideas: Other considerations.

  • All testing involves making some assumptions. To explore further, Jump to Making assumptions.

Despite these details, It's important to remember that, In the end, hypothesesand theories live and die by whether or not they work — in other words, Whether they are useful in explaining data, Generating expectations, Providing satisfying explanations, Inspiring research questions, Answering questions, And solving problems. Science filters through many ideas and builds on those that work!
Debate Round No. 3


But did you even look at my arguments?


The first Quora poster you quoted word for word but unlike me didn't admit it wasn't your own made the error of confusing logic for being truth.

The second Quora poster who you quoted fourth agreed with me because they separated scientists and science. This is most hilarious as this supports the Con side and your copy pasting was clearly not the result of careful reading and figuring you couldn't word the posts better but out of laziness and pasting a whole Quora set of replies as your own work which is fine (I used a whole scholarly web page's contents as my hard-hitting Round 3) but is not what you portrayed what you were doing as.

The second copy and paste job from Quora replies ended up saying that there's no one logic which make the resolution impossible to uphold because apparently 'fuzzy logic' can be one logic while 'higher-oder logics' are a whole different breed.

The third of your copy-pastes seems to agree with me. Science doesn't violate logic, It can use correct logic with faulty data to give you a lie otherwise you're just getting to the lie by bad logic which then is indisputably bad science.

The rest agreed with Con in blatant ways.
Debate Round No. 4


https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=LnPVdFHeZ-Y
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Topaet 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded in round 3
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with con both before and after the debate. Con had better conduct because Pro conceded in RD 3. Con once again had more convincing arguments because Pro conceded in RD 3 and thus had no recourse. Con clearly had more reliable resources considering the fact that all Pro did was a copy and paste and he also plagiarized.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.