Philosophia Polymathematica

Though in common parlance the words reasoning and rationalization are often used interchangeably, there exist subtle but nonetheless highly important distinctions between them. Merely understanding the distinguishing criteria can enable one to become a better thinker, debater, advocate, and arbiter. To my mind, this is due to at least the following reasons: the correct usage of a word backed by an accurate understanding of its etymological denotation and semantic connotation allows for a level of precision of thought that would not be possible otherwise; he who can delineate the contours of these two separate entities is better equipped to parse one’s interlocutor’s rationalizations from reasoning and then proceed to discredit the rationalizations; and most importantly (and probably a most difficult thing to do), one can identify instances of one’s own rationalizing and attempt to resist the temptation to base one’s beliefs upon rationalizations. The importance of having a technica

The scientific method, at its core, is the formulation and testing of hypotheses to discern their veracity and accuracy. This description, though comically simple, is sufficient for purposes of this blog. Scientists often attempt to differentiate science from other human endeavors. In my direct personal experience, scientists also resist, oftentimes very fiercely, the idea of science being likened to philosophy in any way. Perhaps this may account for, at least in some small measure, the fact that the logical/epistemological frameworks devised for purposes of advancing scientific discoveries do not resemble (at least not conveniently) the logical/epistemological frameworks utilized by philosophers. While the scientific method’s framework is generally not juxtaposed with the syllogistic framework devised by philosophers for purposes of studying logical reasoning and argumentation, in my opinion even a cursory examination reveals that the scientific method is merely an extension of it. F