Throwback Thursday: Logic Is No Match For Science
Ethan Siegel

Yes, Universe tells us about itself, no matter what it says. But you (Ethan Siegel) have totally confused about its meaning.

One, Ethan Siegel said, “… the natural Universe — [is] often counterintuitive”.

Intuitive of what? Intuition of uneducated? Intuition of historians? Intuition of novelists? Intuition of mathematicians? Or, the intuition of physicists? Without knowing what intuition which you are talking about, your above statement is totally nonsense. No, nature Universe is not counterintuitive by all means.

Two, you are again totally confused about the meaning of ‘logic’ and ‘science’.

What logic? For formal logic (syllogisms, propositional calculus or a sentential calculus), it is not a key discipline in the physics curriculum; that is, it is not a part of physics (or science) epistemology. There is then no issue for that logic to match for science.

If ‘LOGIC’ is just a WAY (rational or irrational) of linking all members of a giving system, then there is logic for every system, such as:

Logic of fiction writing,

Logic of history study,

Logic of doing evil,

Logic of rational thinking,

Logic of irrational thinking,

And, most important of all, LOGIC of nature.

So, there is logic for SUSY, logic for multiverse, logic for M-string theory. Yet, are these logic(s) representing the LOGIC of nature? As logic(s), this question can be answered logically exclusively, without the need of any experimental verification. For example, the key premise (the base of a logic) of multiverse is that the nature constants of THIS universe cannot be DERIVED as they are just a set from a bigger set of randomly generated numbers. And, this premise can be easily confirmed or refuted with its own logic. This multiverse premise can be easily refuted with two steps.

S1, to show that the nature constants of THIS universe can be easily DERIVED (from a first principle).

S2, to show that those derivations are bubble-independent (see ).

Then, what is science?

Ethan Siegel wrote, “It’s the only Universe we have, and no matter how solid the footing of our theoretical predictions, they must always be subject to the scrutiny of unrelenting and continuous tests.”

You are presuming that human test (experiments) is ALWAYS identical to the nature-logic. This is totally wrong. ALL human experiments are theory-based which is a great guess of nature-logic. When more theories are confirmed to be parts of nature-logic, the validity of the human experiments is reaching a better number. Yet, the correct experiment itself does not guarantee a correct interpretation and understanding. In 2012, a new boson (with 125 Gev mass) was discovered via experiment, but is wrongly named as Higgs boson while the Higgs mechanism is not even verified even now (September 26, 2015). In fact, {Higgs mechanism is not only wrong but is totally stupid}, see .

Yet, are SUSY, multiverse and M-string theory science?

Multiverse is easily refute as a correct theory with logic. Yet, multiverse could still have been a science if it were testable (in terms of Popperianism).

Is “Black hole information loss” issue a science?

One, black hole itself is not directly observed, not even with any indirect observations, such as “Seeing a shadow of black hole, via gravity lensing”.

Two, black hole plays almost ZERO role in most viable cosmology models.

Three, black hole plays almost ZERO role in most viable dark-matter models.

Four, black hole plays absolute ZERO role in the calculations of nature constants.

With the above facts, even with the street-walking people’s LOGIC, one can know that ‘black hole’ is a peanut in the structure (or logic) of this universe. This universe is in fact a living organism; stars born, live and die, and black is just the trash (the feces, the turds, etc.).

Yet, the point here is “Why are we hyping black hole study is a science?”

With the example of multiverse and black hole issues, we can address them with street-walking person’s LOGIC. If they plays no roles, they are nothing. Furthermore, there is LOGIC in science, the science-LOGIC. Thus, your fighting logic with science is totally confused.

What is science? This is a big issue. Thus far, science is defined by Popperianism (in terms of falsifiability). How stupid this can be! How can a nature-logic (as the truth by definition) be falsified? Of course, any model which is not on par to the nature-LOGIC, it must be false and can always be falsified. Yet, using Popperianism to define SCIENCE is not only wrong but is stupid. I have addressed this Popperianism issue in details, and they are available at: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

With the proper understanding the meaning of SCIENCE, no, there is no matching issue between Logic and Science.