Natural Order and Science

[little_monkey]

Reducing reality to simple rules like, "everything needs a cause" is just making a massive unfounded assumption. "In my experience things have needed a cause" is what the person is actually saying, and is then trying to extrapolate that to all of reality, including reality itself. This is garbage, and it's why this kind of thing never produces any meaningful results. What use is it?

Logic can accurately represent the true nature of reality. Beginning with simple descriptions of particular things, we can eventually assemble our information in order to achieve a comprehensive view of the world.

Logic is a tool used to iron out inconsistencies. It may reflect reality, but not necessarily so. For instance, the following syllogism will illustrate my point:

- All fire-breathing dragons are mortal

- My pet is a fire-breathing dragon

- Therefore my pet is mortal.


Though the syllogism is correctly constructed, it doesn't reflect reality, unless I can prove that fire-breathing dragons do exist. Is logic important? Very important but by itself, it is not sufficient to guarantee that I have a set of statements that describes reality. I need to investigate empirically if the content of my statements have any reality basis -  in this case, the existence of fire-breathing dragons.