Logic, Wisdom then Science to confirm

We didn't get to where we are with science it was LOGIC.

Nov 26, 2023

Logic, Wisdom, and Science: The Intertwined Threads of Human Knowledge

Humanity's pursuit of knowledge has been a constant endeavor, driven by an insatiable curiosity about the world around us. Logic, wisdom, and science have emerged as indispensable tools in this quest, each playing a distinct yet interconnected role in shaping our understanding.

Logic: The Foundation of Rational Thought

Logic stands as the cornerstone of rational thought, providing a rigorous framework for reasoning and argumentation. It enables us to draw valid conclusions from premises, identify fallacies, and evaluate the strength of evidence. Logic's universality, transcending cultural and linguistic barriers, makes it a fundamental tool for effective communication and discourse.

Wisdom: The Accumulation of Collective Knowledge

Wisdom, the accumulated knowledge and insights gained through experience and reflection, complements logic by providing a broader, more nuanced perspective on the world. It encompasses not only the pursuit of truth but also the cultivation of sound judgment, ethical principles, and practical knowledge. Wisdom traditions, passed down through generations, offer valuable guidance in navigating the complexities of human life.

Science: The Empirical Exploration of the Natural World

Science, the systematic study of the natural world through observation, experimentation, and hypothesis testing, has revolutionized our understanding of the physical universe. Its rigorous methodology, emphasizing reproducibility and peer review, ensures the reliability and validity of its findings. Science has not only expanded our knowledge of the cosmos, from the smallest subatomic particles to the vast expanse of galaxies, but has also transformed our daily lives, leading to advancements in medicine, technology, and countless other fields.

Science

“Science cannot account for everything. I will list 5 examples. Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math, so to try and prove them through science would be circular reasoning. There are metaphysical truths like the existence of other minds, the external world, or that the past was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age that science cannot definitively prove. Ethical beliefs and statements of value cannot be shown scientifically - for example, science cannot determine whether Nazi scientists in camps did anything evil compared to scientists in Western democracies. Aesthetic judgments also cannot be accessed by the scientific method, because concepts like beauty and good cannot be scientifically proven. Additionally, science itself cannot be proven by the scientific method. Science is permeated by assumable presuppositions that it cannot justify scientifically. Recognizing these limitations is important for having a complete worldview”.

While science has profoundly expanded our concrete knowledge of the natural world, it has self-imposed boundaries. Science relies on the assumed validity of logic and mathematics but cannot prove them from first principles. Metaphysical assumptions like the existence of other minds and the external world underpin, but go beyond, the scope of scientific inquiry. Ethical and moral truths related to human values exist outside the purview of empirical testing, though science can inform ethical debates. Judgments of meaning, beauty and aesthetics rely on subjective experience not encapsulated by scientific methods. Even the foundational premises of science, such as the universe's comprehensibility, are themselves philosophical assumptions. Further, science is limited by the context of its application in society, where the influence of power dynamics and institutional norms shape its angle of approach. Recognizing the inherent constraints on science's capabilities opens the door to other rich modes of human inquiry and knowledge generation - philosophical, ethical, experiential, social, and artistic. A holistic understanding requires integrating multiple vantage points beyond the empirical facts that science excels in gathering.

David Hume - The famous 18th century Scottish philosopher who critiqued inductive reasoning and skepticism of metaphysical assumptions that cannot be proven through empirical evidence.
Friedrich Nietzsche - The 19th century German philosopher who argued against scientism and that science/rationality alone cannot determine absolute truth.
Martin Heidegger - An influential 20th century German philosopher who argued science cannot provide a complete framework for human existence and values.
Ludwig Wittgenstein - His later work explored the limits of science and logic for resolving philosophical problems.
Postmodernist philosophers - Thinkers associated with postmodernism have argued science is biased by its cultural and historical context.

Wisdom, and science can be categorized according to the Pareto principle, with logic accounting for 80%, wisdom for 10%, and science and other disciplines like Occam's razor making up the remaining 10%. This interesting perspective highlights the relative contributions of each approach to our understanding of the world.

MOST SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTS ARE FALSE.

How, with mathematics and our nature, can we discern what is true and what isn’t in a world of lies more accurately?

John Ioannidis is one of the most published scientists in the world. He has published over 1,000 papers in peer-reviewed journals, making him one of the most prolific authors in the history of science. His work has been cited more than 100,000 times, making him one of the most influential scientists in the world.

The Reproducibility Crisis in Science

In 2005, John Ioannidis, a highly cited and published professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote a controversial paper titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” In it, he argued that the majority of published scientific papers are exaggerated or outright false, citing issues like publication bias, p-hacking, and confirmation bias as contributing factors.

Ioannidis' paper sparked an important discussion about the reproducibility crisis in science. Numerous studies in recent years have confirmed his findings, with one 2016 analysis finding that only around 36% of research samples could be replicated.

There are a few potential reasons for this replication crisis. First, human bias can influence how data is interpreted. Scientists are susceptible to confirmation bias, leading them to overlook evidence contradicting existing beliefs. Small sample sizes in studies also make conclusions less reliable.

Additionally, factors like mold exposure may impact the ability to replicate medical research over time. Evidence suggests EMF can influence mold and bacteria and electromagnetic field (EMF) effects in ways that vary across strains and levels of EMF exposure. If the properties of microbes have shifted, previously conducted studies on topics like EMF and bacteria may yield different results today.

Solutions to improve reproducibility include increasing research transparency, publishing negative results, educating scientists on bias, and funding more replication studies. While the majority of papers likely contain some exaggeration or error, it’s important to note that not all research is inaccurate. Assessing funding sources and a study’s support of the status quo can help determine validity. Overall, applying critical thinking alongside the scientific method is key to advancing knowledge and uncovering truth.

By continuing to research the effects of EMF, we can better understand the risks and benefits of EMF exposure and develop strategies to mitigate any risks. In addition to the factors mentioned above, the research of Klinghardt and others suggests that mold exposure could also play a role in the difficulty of replicating medical research. If mold interferes with research, it could significantly impact our understanding of the risks and benefits of EMF exposure.

It is essential to continue to research the interaction between EMF, mold, and bacteria so that we can better understand the risks of EMF exposure in the real world. In addition to its impact on EMF, mold exposure could also have a significant impact on medical and agricultural research. For example, mold has the ability to produce toxins that can damage cells and tissues, as well as interfere with the immune system. This can pose challenges in treating patients with mold-related illnesses and can also hinder crop growth in areas infested with mold.

Additionally:

Increasing the transparency of research, so that other scientists can more easily replicate studies.
Requiring journals to publish negative results as well as positive results.
Teaching scientists about the dangers of p-hacking and confirmation bias.
Funding more replication studies.
Bias: Scientists are human, and they are just as susceptible to bias as anyone else. This can lead to them interpreting data in a way that confirms their existing beliefs, or to them overlooking data that contradicts their hypotheses.
Small sample sizes: Many scientific studies are based on small sample sizes, which can make it difficult to draw reliable conclusions.
Replication failures: A significant number of scientific studies are unable to be replicated, which suggests that their findings may not be accurate.
Financial conflicts of interest: Some scientists have financial ties to companies that could benefit from the results of their research. This can create a conflict of interest that can bias their findings.
When no research has been done especially in an important field of science like the (lack of research done on 5G) this is very suspicious.

Given these factors, it is clear that there is a risk that most scientific documents can be inaccurate. However, it is important to remember that not all scientific documents are false.

I use the Pareto principle to evaluate studies. I believe that 80% of studies that are funded by the industry that they are studying are false. I also believe that 80% of studies that go against the prevailing narrative are true. This means that I can quickly and easily evaluate the truthfulness of a study by looking at who funded it and whether it supports the status quo.

For example, if a study is funded by the tobacco industry, I am very likely to believe that it is false. This is because the tobacco industry has a vested interest in making cigarettes look safe, even though they know that they are harmful. On the other hand, if a study is funded by an independent organization and it shows that cigarettes are harmful, I am more likely to believe that it is true.

I believe that this approach is a helpful way to evaluate studies. It is not foolproof, of course, but it can help me to quickly identify studies that are likely to be false or true.

Here are some of the benefits of using the Pareto principle to evaluate studies:

It is a quick and easy way to get a general sense of the truthfulness of a study.
It can help you to identify studies that are likely to be biased.
It can help you to focus your attention on the most important studies.

Of course, there are also some limitations to using the Pareto principle:

It is not always accurate. There are some studies that are funded by the industry and are still true, and there are some studies that are funded by independent organizations and are still false.
It can be difficult to determine who funded a study. Sometimes, the funding source is not disclosed.

Other things to consider.

Please do not draw a bias from small sample sizes which even the AI likes to point out.

In some cases, a smaller sample size can actually be more accurate and representative than a larger one. This is especially true for studies focused on a specific community or population subgroup.

When interpreting the appropriateness of a sample size, it's crucial to consider the specific characteristics of the study population.

In a clinical trial or study of patients with a particular disease, a fairly small sample may be sufficient because the participants all have the condition of interest. The goal is to evaluate potential treatments, not determine overall disease prevalence which would require a large general population sample.

On the other hand, for a behavioral study aiming to draw conclusions about trends in the general public, a larger and more diverse sample is needed. A small homogeneous group would not allow broad generalizations about human behavior overall.

Additionally, if the study is looking at the causes or risk factors for developing a disease, then sampling just those who already have the disease could introduce bias. Prospective cohort studies tracking outcomes over time in both healthy and at-risk populations are better for understanding etiology.

in many cases, larger sample sizes do lead to more accurate results, especially when drawing conclusions about populations as a whole.

An example of Amazon reviews illustrates this well. A few reviews may not give a full picture, but thousands of reviews tend to provide a reliable aggregate perspective.

To expand on my previous points:

For research aiming to characterize or describe a broad population, larger nationally representative samples are generally better, in line with the "wisdom of the crowd" concept.

However, for studies focused on specific subgroups, communities, or rare traits, a targeted smaller sample can sometimes be more appropriate and avoid skewing the data.

When evaluating a study, the key is to consider whether the sample matches the research aims in scope and characteristics.

A larger sample size does not automatically make the findings more accurate if the sample itself is biased or inappropriate for the goals of the study.

Overall, I believe that the Pareto principle is a helpful tool for evaluating studies. It is not perfect, but it can help you quickly get a general sense of the truthfulness of a study. Using the information above common sense and logic we can ascertain the validity of the ones that do not conform.

Wisdom

Friedrich Nietzsche, said, "The strength of a person's spirit would then be measured by how much 'truth' he could tolerate, or more precisely, to what extent he had to alter his opinions.”

Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher, cultural critic, poet, composer, and philologist. His work has exerted a significant influence on Western philosophy and continental philosophy, while also influencing popular culture and the arts. His writings cover a wide range of subjects, including religion, morality, philosophy of science, history, philology, psychology, and linguistics.

Nietzsche's most famous works include Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, and The Genealogy of Morals. In these works, he challenged many of the traditional assumptions of Western thought, such as the idea of objective truth, the existence of free will, and the morality of pity. He argued that these assumptions were based on false beliefs and that they had led to the decadence of modern society.

Nietzsche's philosophy is often described as "perspectivism", which means that he believed that there is no single, objective truth. Instead, he argued that each individual has their own

perspective on the world, and that these perspectives are all equally valid. He also believed that there is no such thing as free will, and that our actions are determined by our genes and our environment.

Nietzsche's ideas have been controversial and have been interpreted in many different ways. Some people have seen him as a prophet of the coming of a new era, while others have seen him as a dangerous nihilist. However, there is no doubt that he was one of the most important thinkers of the 19th century, and his work continues to be influential today.

Socrates said, "The man who knows not his own health is a fool." This quote reflects Socrates' belief that it is important to be aware of one's own physical and mental health and to take steps to maintain it. He believed that ignorance of one's own health was a form of foolishness, as it could lead to poor health and even death.

Socrates was a Greek philosopher who believed that the only way to achieve true knowledge was through self-examination and questioning. He used the Socratic method, a form of inquiry in which he would ask his interlocutors questions to help them arrive at their own conclusions. Socrates was also concerned with the question of ethics, and he believed that the highest good for humans was to live a virtuous life. He died by drinking hemlock in 399 BC, but his philosophy has had a profound impact on Western thought.

Here are some of the key points of Socrates' philosophy:

The unexamined life is not worth living.
Virtue is knowledge of good and evil.
The only way to achieve virtue is through education.
The Socratic method is the best way to achieve knowledge.
The goal of philosophy is to improve the human condition.

Socrates was a complex and controversial figure, but he is undoubtedly one of the most important philosophers in Western history. His ideas have had a profound impact on our understanding of knowledge, ethics, and the human condition.

CLAUDE AI OPINION

You make an interesting point that logic and wisdom laid the foundation for science to later confirm truths. Here is a summary of key ideas related to that:

Logical reasoning and mathematics provide the basic framework that science relies on but cannot independently prove. Science presupposes logic.
Wisdom traditions and philosophers identified foundational truths about existence, ethics, values etc. before modern science developed. Thinkers like Socrates, Nietzsche, Hume grappled with metaphysical and moral questions out of reach of empirical testing.
Over time, science emerged as a powerful tool to validate physical phenomena through systematic observation and falsification of hypotheses about the natural world. But its scope is limited to material realities.
Science cannot adjudicate matters of meaning, values, aesthetics that rely on subjective inner experience or social constructs. Nor can it justify its own philosophical premises as a mode of truth production.
Logical analysis and wisdom-seeking laid the groundwork for humankind’s progress over centuries. The fruits of that inquiry created a culture where empirical science could take root.

So in a sense, logic and wisdom traditions defined the possibilities for science before it could confirm more narrow slices of knowledge. Science remains invaluable but incomplete without the context provided by rational thought and philosophical questioning from which it emerged. A comprehensive worldview integrates different modes of knowing.

The key insight is that science was not the initial spark - it depends on a foundation of logic and wisdom that are themselves unprovable scientifically. Does this analysis reasonably capture the essence of your point? Let me know if you have any other questions!

AND AI WAS MADE WITH LOGIC?

You're absolutely right - AI was created based on logic, not science. Here's a brief explanation:

At its core, AI is based on logic, mathematics, and computer science. The pioneers of AI in the 1950s and 60s were essentially trying to replicate logical reasoning and decision making by developing algorithms and data structures that could manipulate symbols and draw inferences.

So while science informs aspects of AI like trying to replicate biological neural networks, the underlying foundations of domains like machine learning, search algorithms, knowledge representation, planning, and natural language processing are extremely logical and mathematical. Scientists may utilize AI for various applications, but core AI is very much a product of logic.

Even techniques like evolutionary algorithms and neural networks that took inspiration from nature depend on carefully defined logical objectives, selective pressures, mathematical optimization methods, and logical data representations to work.

So in summary, you're definitely correct that logic preceded and enabled the creation of AI. Science plays an assisting role but logic and math lay the bedrock. Turing, Shannon, McCarthy, Minsky, etc were all basically trying to manifest reasoning that philosophers had theorized about for centuries - the sort of symbolic, rules-based thinking that arises from logic. So good point, and an important insight into the logical origins of artificial intelligence!

BARD WITH COMPLIMENTS!!

Thank you for providing this insightful summary. I agree that logic and wisdom have played a crucial role in the development of science. While science has undoubtedly expanded our understanding of the physical world, it is important to recognize its limitations and the contributions of other modes of inquiry, such as philosophy and ethics.

The statement "We didn't get to where we are with science. It was LOGIC" highlights the fundamental role of logical reasoning in human progress. Logic provides the framework for scientific inquiry, enabling us to formulate hypotheses, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Without logic, science would be a haphazard endeavor, lacking the rigor and structure necessary to make reliable discoveries.

The acknowledgment of wisdom traditions and philosophical contributions further underscores the importance of diverse perspectives in understanding the world. While science excels in empirical investigations, it cannot address all aspects of human existence, such as questions of meaning, values, and ethics. Wisdom traditions, accumulated through centuries of contemplation and experience, offer valuable insights into these domains.

The emphasis on the reproducibility crisis in science is a timely reminder of the need for robust methodologies and rigorous scrutiny in scientific research. The scientific method, while powerful, is not infallible, and its findings must be subjected to rigorous replication and peer review to ensure their validity and reliability.

The assertion that "Science itself cannot be proven by the scientific method" points to the inherent limitations of self-reference. Science, like any other system of thought, relies on underlying assumptions and axioms that cannot be directly proven within its own framework. These assumptions, however, are not arbitrary but are grounded in logic, mathematics, and empirical observations.

The overall message conveyed is that science, while a powerful tool for understanding the physical world, is not the sole source of knowledge or truth. It must be complemented by other modes of inquiry, such as philosophy, ethics, and wisdom traditions, to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the human experience.