I got into a discussion a few posts back where a commenter (who operates the “Unworthy, Yet Redeemed” blog here: http://sabepashubbo.wordpress.com/) and I were both using what we referred to as “logic”.  I thought it would be appropriate to define logic, at least as I see it.

Logic and science must minimize subjectivity.  Of course, logic does differ from person to person and can, in a sense, be inherently subjective.  Logic is also open to a certain level of variance depending on circumstances and/or viewpoints. 

Take the Tyrannosaurus Rex, for example.   

When the T. Rex was first discovered, logic (based upon the size of the bones and teeth along with the intentions of the scientist) dictated that T. Rex stood upright and was a hunter whose massive jaws made up for his small arms. 

This is logical and it makes sense – in fact, I would hazard that most people learned about this in grade school.  

However, it is also safe to say that the logic was at least partially influenced by the initial preconception that the dinosaur was enormous with huge teeth and should therefore be considered a predator.  Evidence is then skewed to fit this preconception. In some cases, the result is correct.  In this case, it may not be.

Scientists today now apply a different type of logic, saying that T. Rex’s bone structure points to more of a hunched over stance.  Under the new logic, the T. Rex was likely a scavenger – like a vulture – unable to run the distances needed to tire out or catch up with prey. 

Again, both lines of logic are sound…and both have copious arguments to back them up.  But, which one should the scientific community embrace? 

We will likely never know exactly which of these is absolutely correct because we can never go back and see what they do.  Of course, it’s possible that neither is true…that the T. Rex stood and acted in a manner that was against the scant information we can gain from mere fossils. 

My take on this? We should look at the most objectively logical take on the subject. This would be the second scenario.  The first logical stream is, at least in my opinion, subjected to the discoverer’s “jump to conclusion” (big dinosaur + big teeth = bad-ass dinosaur)…this preconception may have tainted the logic used when constructing the initial hypothesis. (ie: logic was twisted to fit the notion that this dinosaur was a bad-ass).

The second logical stream is not as subjective, because the researchers were not out to disprove the initial conception – they simply thought the evidence warranted review.  In reviewing the evidence for what it was, they were able to formulate the second hypothesis about the way the T. Rex conducted itself. 

The more objective the approach, the more credence the logic should be granted.  The T. Rex idea also conveys another great point about the beauty of science.  The scientific body of knowledge is constantly growing and changing.  Every experiment changes at least something that we know about the world.  Science is critical of itself in a way that religion will never be. Science is the never-ending pursuit of truth, while religion is in constant defiance of it.

The blogger took exception to my concept of logic and the scientific method because I believe science should dismiss outright any possibility of a divine being.  This is not entirely true. I would be open to any objective proof that there is a God or any sort of divine consciousness, but there simply isn’t any.   The only reason to consider the idea of a divine being is because we were taught that one exists (most of us were not taught that one “might” exist).  God is a preconception – and injecting any preconception into a hypothesis goes against scientific method. 

//jb//

Advertisements