Leave a comment below!
My mother always told me when I complained of math classes that Math was important because it taught logic.
But I have read or heard the opinions of many scientists, engineers, physicists, chemists, and mathemeticians which haven't a shred of logic to them when it comes to their atheism, agnosticism, or hostility to the imagination of an invisible reality.
There is not a single philosophy of life or being which doesn't contradict itself if it has no premis in a metaphysics and absolute reality.
Yet all these math trained people haven't the logic to recognize illogic when it comes out of their mouths. Nor realize that all knowledge is based on the senses.
You simply can't can't teach Logic. Without Truth, logic is just silly word games.
I suspect one can teach logic. In the case of scientists, however, the logic they learn is different from "normal" logic and reasoning. In a week, I will be completing my BS in mathematics, and I have never had to take a class in logic or any sort of non-mathematical reasoning. We do problems in self-contained systems and the answers are in those same systems. It certainly is no stretch to suspect that after so much training and so many years in doing such things, that mindset will carry over to everyday problems, for which the answers may be in a self-contained system, but that system is far more complex than the human mind can comprehend. Tautologically, all mathematical systems can be comprehended by the human mind. So, I suspect, many scientists are unable to see beyond that so they transpose easy answers onto a complicated world.
I think Ken hits a point here. Part of the problem with Math/Science types is that many "truths" are easier to recognize or test for in Math/Science than in morality. Yet truths do exist in morality. But, b/c M/S types are used to being able to work "truths" out through formula, which is a little more difficult to do in the moral sphere, they simply deny the existence or provability of such truths.
A good example is the moral truth that selfishly thwarting the natural ends of the procreative act results in death of society. It is difficult to piece my personal use of a condom in a given situation with the fall of the west. Yet, that little act, multiplied by 80% of the population of the west, has resulted in below level replacement rates for several decades now.
You both make good points. There is logic to be followed in a closed system, but even all those people with me in Philosophy 101 never really "got" Socrates and his method.
They just thought he played word games until he trapped someone into looking foolish.
But Socrates is the model for taking anything apart until it falls apart. He pushes every thought by questioning to the point of no return, so to speak.
He proves what Jesus says about shifting sand and standing on a rock. Socrates never ran into Jesus, of course, to hear about the rock.
Commenting by HaloScan
