# Why don't "scientists" accept that not everything follows strict logic? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 2, 2017, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117 "2017-01-02T01:20:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/41 "2017-01-02T08:30:59Z")
Why does the OP confuse atheists and scientists? Other than not being either one himself, quite evidently. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/42 "2017-01-02T08:51:22Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > [This thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=814871) on “Mysterious Happenings” got me thinking about the many atheists and evolutionists and others who have argued against the concepts of God and the supernatural. They insist that everything must follow the scientific method which requires strict guidelines for verification. > > Why cant they accept that their just MIGHT be some strange, unaccountable force, voodoo, power of God, time travel vortex, or whatever out there that just might be the cause for events? I see two different complaints here … and I sympathize with both of them! I think some facts can be treated as probably true without “strict verification.” For example, I regard certain politicians as criminals despite that no jury has pronounced them guilty of a felony. As for “unaccountable forces” or “time travel” I, for one, certainly do not rule such out. I won’t say more — let’s not get my new year at the Dope off to a fierier start than necessary. Disclaimer: I am not a scientist … but I am a “scientist,” once having the job title Senior Computer Scientist. (Perhaps a euphemism for “old hacker” but if I was an old hacker 25 years ago, what am I now? :eek: ) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/43 "2017-01-02T09:27:33Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Why does the OP confuse atheists and scientists? Other than not being either one himself, quite evidently. I would venture to guess that he’s taking the view that science is the ‘religion’ of atheists. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/44 "2017-01-02T14:10:21Z")
More than 40 posts and [no link to this](https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4003/4633000725_8817dcedb9_b.jpg)? For shame! ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/45 "2017-01-02T14:24:19Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > I can’t make heads or tails of the rest of your post, but there are definite neurophysical reasons why we appreciate art, and why certain types of visual presentations are appealing. I could write a monologue-length post on the topic, but Nobel laureate and world renowned neuroscientist and psychistrist (and art enthusiast) Eric Kandel has written an excellent book on the topic: [_Reductionism in Art and Brain Science: Bridging the Two Cultures_](https://www.amazon.com/Reductionism-Art-Brain-Science-Bridging/dp/0231179626/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8PZ99NPXAQA5TT2Q0F6Y). Some posts in this thread (and this one in particular, since it uses the term “two cultures” reminds me of [a recent post](https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/guardian-asks-scientists-to-choose-their-best-books-of-the-year/) by Jerry Coyne, in particular this quote, which I agree with: \* The upshot: as I always maintain, scientists who read have a much more balanced selection, at least with respect to the Two Cultures, than do nonscientists. In other words, scientists know a lot more about the products of the humanities than scholars of the humanities know about the products of science.\* ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/46 "2017-01-02T14:28:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What are “scientists”? [We are!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et9llKBJdEs) ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/47 "2017-01-02T14:32:53Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Now, if **UrbanRedneck** wishes to assert that the universe is illogical and unknowable because it’s being directed by the multiple intelligences of a television series’s writers’ room; I think that’s an interesting proposition, but a completely ludicrous objection to actual useful bits of science, like cellular biology, actinide chemistry, and meteorology, which actually _work._ Tommy Westphall would like a word with you. > [@monstro](#): > > I’ve never met a scientist who doesn’t feel comfortable saying “I don’t know”. “As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life—so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls.” —Matt Cartmill > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Sometimes it’s based on opinion. I believe _Casablanca_ is the greatest movie ever made. And that’s true. But it’s only true for me. Just because I believe _Casablanca_ is the greatest movie ever made doesn’t mean you’re wrong if you believe _Star Wars_ is the greatest movie ever made. Opinions are personal to each individual. You could actually objectively prove that _Casablanca_ is the “greatest movie ever made”…if you could agree a rigorous set of criteria and method of analysis. > [@Riemann](#): > > The distinction you’re looking for is not “strange” vs “not strange”, it is “stuff for which there is evidence”, and “bullshit that people just made up”. To be fair, there is a third category of “stuff for which we have not yet found evidence”. The problem is that certain people insist that everything in the “bullshit that people just made up” category belongs in the third category, when in reality 99% of everything currently filed under “stuff for which we have not yet found evidence” belongs in the “bullshit” category. Scientists are working to sift out the remaining 1%. > [@astro](#): > > Lots of people above will give explanations of the scientific method and what science does and does not do. I want to take a slightly different, more hands on tack with respect to the existence of miracles and super natural phenomena. > > [Per this](https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/)there are now approximately 2 billion smartphone users on earth. 2 billion people with reasonably high resolution video & camera picture taking capabilities on or near their persons most of their waking hours. > > How many things that “science” said was impossible or extremely unlikely have been proven to exist by this massive 2 billion strong army of recording capability? Almost one half of adult humanity has the power to empirically demonstrate “supernatural” miracles in action. We don’t have t just take their word for it. > > So relative to the number of claimed miracles, cryptobeasts, aliens etc. we should have a virtual torrent of proof rolling in. But we don’t. If anything we have fewer claims as people claiming supernatural phenomena these days have to explain why they have no picture or video to back up their extraordinary claims. > > 2 BILLION video cameras rolling around in people’s hands and nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Tell me why. As always, [there’s an XKCD for that](https://xkcd.com/1235/). ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/48 "2017-01-02T14:37:23Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Why cant they accept that their just MIGHT be some strange, unaccountable force, voodoo, power of God, time travel vortex, or whatever out there that just might be the cause for events? The way I see it, saying “not everything follows strict logic” is a lazy, closed-minded way of looking at the universe. You are dismissing the possibility that everything can be explained by logic. And by dismissing the possibility, you don’t even try to explain the universe through logic. If Newton thought the movement of the planets were ineffable, he wouldn’t have come up with Newton’s Laws or calculus. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/49 "2017-01-02T15:12:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m sure scientists have just as many opinions and faith-based beliefs as anyone else. But they don’t call those beliefs science. Never go casino gambling with a mathematician … ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/50 "2017-01-02T15:20:05Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > [This thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=814871) on “Mysterious Happenings” got me thinking about the many atheists and evolutionists and others who have argued against the concepts of God and the supernatural. They insist that everything must follow the scientific method which requires strict guidelines for verification. > > Why cant they accept that their just MIGHT be some strange, unaccountable force, voodoo, power of God, time travel vortex, or whatever out there that just might be the cause for events? To a very large degree science _does_ accept that there are strange, unaccounted forces or whatever out there that just might be the cause for events. It does _not_ accept that they are necessarily unaccount_able_. > [@Arthur C. Clarke](#): > > Magic’s just science that we don’t understand yet. There _no doubt_ are forces at work in this universe that we do not understand and that science does not account for … call one of them “magic”, the M force. The M force has impacts on matter and the forces that we already know about? Then science is devoted to understanding the nature of that M force and being able to predict what it does in different circumstances. Sure, there may be things that are unknowable, even theoretically, and our ignorance will always exceed our knowledge, but science’s mission, reason to exist, is the ongoing effort to try to understand and predict all that is understandable and predictable, even if in the process we only come to grips with the fact that there is even more that we have to be ignorant about than we had previously realized. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/51 "2017-01-02T15:40:34Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Wait … that can’t be true … is it … damn … I think it is true … dammit … I knew it was bad but I didn’t realize it was that bad … that’s not a very good batting average … how does the Hindu faith fare … that’s wickets per ha’inning I think … > > Science doesn’t have a perfect batting average, now does it? … dinosaur DNA in Baltic Amber (kook-coo kook-coo kook-coo) … like that worked out … > > I’m not sure the logical fallacy I’ve committed above, but that’s the best I got here … I don’t have to look at my own errors while I’m pointing out yours … neat trick … The gravitational acceleration on earth is approximately 9.80665m/s^2. This is demonstrably accurate, to a high degree of certainty. There will never be a time where the gravitational acceleration on earth is 3m/s^2, or 15m/s^2. Like it or not, while science doesn’t have a perfect batting average, it consistently improves upon itself, becoming more and more accurate when it comes to describing the world. Every single aspect of our modern lives, from the computer you are reading this on to the building you’re standing in to the car you use to drive to work. Meanwhile, can you name a _single_ case where “God did it” or “it’s magic” was the correct answer to _anything_? In every single case we’ve applied it, from lightning to volcanoes to the source of diseases to the origin of the earth to the origin of the moon to why the sun moves the way it does to why the tides go in and out to fucking magnets, the answer has either been wrong or unproven. Hell, I don’t even know if it’s _possible_ to prove that something was caused by something else outside of the universe, or what that would even _mean_. The fact that you would compare the two indicates to me that you don’t really understand either very well. > [@](#): > > Science has it’s place, and I think most any scientist would enjoy a visit to an art museum … some things are not scientific … Our subjective experience of certain things? Our personal preferences? Well… why not? Our emotions and memories and thoughts are essentially chemical processes within our brains. We’re learning more and more through psychology how to influence it, and there’s a great deal to be learned about _why_ certain bits of art influence us the way they do. But that’s not what the OP is talking about. Rather, he’s talking about physical effects from “unaccountable forces” - voodoo, gods, magic, et cetera. Our subjective enjoyment or experience is an entirely different category. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/52 "2017-01-02T17:09:39Z")
To my mind, the real problem with accepting magic, voodoo, gods, etc., as an explanation is that it puts an end to inquiry. If society asks, for example, what causes this illness? And, the answer comes back, well, according to this infallible book, it’s God’s punishment for evil-doing, what have we gained? What have we learned? Has it helped find the cure? By accepting gods or the supernatural, we put an end to learning. What problems should we answer with that explanation? **Urbanredneck** , bad spirits really were the explanation to some diseases, right? Should we just have accepted that? Why should disease be subject to scientific inquiry and not other claims? Where would you draw the line? What problems do you think should be subject to the scientific method and what problems should we satisfy with the answer “unknowable” or “God did it” or something similar? Why would you put some questions in one column and some in the other? ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/53 "2017-01-02T18:41:27Z")
I’m curious as to what the OP does for a living. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/54 "2017-01-02T18:49:24Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > [This thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=814871) on “Mysterious Happenings” got me thinking about the many atheists and evolutionists and others who have argued against the concepts of God and the supernatural. They insist that everything must follow the scientific method which requires strict guidelines for verification. > > Why cant they accept that their just MIGHT be some strange, unaccountable force, voodoo, power of God, time travel vortex, or whatever out there that just might be the cause for events? First of all, some sorting needs to be done. Not everyone who “argue(s) against the concepts of God and the supernatural” are trained scientists and well-reasoned atheists. Many of the people who go on the attack against religious belief, are no more rational about that, than the most fanatical true believers are. So don’t blame “science” or “the scientific method” for every instance where someone said rude things about religions. As has been intimated to some extent already, we don’t use the scientific method because we are opposed to the idea of gods and magic, we use it because it has proven to be practical and reliable. Amusingly, science cannot be used to disprove all existence of magic, for the simple reason that magic is defined as “supernatural” in the strict sense of the word. What Supernatural means, is “does not obey Natural Law.” and what Natural means in this very old sense, is what we nowadays refer to as The Real World. Science can’t prove that magic can’t exist, only that everything seen so far, can be explained otherwise. But it is equally true for the exact same reason, that no one can prove the EXISTENCE of magic or gods, either. BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPERNATURAL. Which brings us back to the simplest answer for this thread question, which is something like “Because we can USE answers derived from application of the Scientific Method, and we CAN’T use answers derived from belief in unknown and unknowable forces or beings.” ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/55 "2017-01-02T18:58:59Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > I’m curious as to what the OP does for a living. Former “science” teacher. [From here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=738764) > [@Ask the previously 'quiverful' girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-previously-quiverful-girl/702705/168): > > I’m a former HS science teacher myself and I’m going off my sons 6th and 7th grade science texts and how they cover the basics. Biology, geology, ecology, physics, and chemistry. Explanations, diagrams, and summary questions all seem to be well written and cover the topics well. Currently my son is studying cells and cell theory and I challenge you to look at his textbook and any “normal” textbook and tell me his doesnt cover the topic just as well. > > BTW, they also get their hands dirty with labs and projects. To me, science cannot be studied any other way. > > And why not mention God? We all know religion has played a part in science both good and bad. Also why not examine the possibility of some devine intervention in nature? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/56 "2017-01-02T19:00:06Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I can’t speak for scientists as a whole but in my experience medical doctors are not empiricists. If your condition does not fit in their little box of how they understand medicine works then they change the facts of your case to suit their schema. A family physician isn’t really a scientist. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/57 "2017-01-02T19:35:54Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Former “science” teacher. > [From here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=738764) That’s unsettling. I wonder if any of the science test answers were “God did it.” Anyone who teaches should respect the desire to learn, I would hope, instead of lamenting a lack of blind faith. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/58 "2017-01-02T19:57:27Z")
_Your_ science is not capable of measuring _my_ woo. And by the same token, if _your_ medicine won’t recognize _my_ belief as to what ails me, then _your_ medicine is at fault. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/59 "2017-01-02T20:13:04Z")
While we’re on the subject, why don’t engineers take my ideas around magical invisible dragons that hold up large structures into account when they build bridges? They’re so closed minded. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117/60 "2017-01-02T20:28:08Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > A family physician isn’t really a scientist. To a certain extent that’s a good thing; there’s a limit to how much I want my GP experimenting on me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-scientists-accept-that-not-everything-follows-strict-logic/776117.md?page=4)