Bridge without ramps
This is a strong argument, and a good and necessary argument.

Kreeft is concerned that we will give in to the ancient temptation to idolize the work of our hands: symbolic logic and the computers it gave rise to. But if we do so, we will lower ourselves to the level of the beasts, and neglect those powers of the mind recognized by classical logic as what makes the difference between humans on the one hand, and animals and computers on the other hand.

The takeaway from all this is simply to remind us that scientific thinking in the sense of symbolic logic is not the only kind of thinking or knowing that there is. Engineers of all people should recognize that they do their work in the context of human society, which is forever beyond the grasp of symbolic logic to analyze or comprehend. Something more is required. We can call that something classical logic, or wisdom, or even faith. But to limit ourselves to the kind of logic that computers can do is to leave our humanity behind.

Like a well-built bridge without ramps, this argument misses some steps at both the start and finish.



At the start:

Before we can worry about the limitations of logic, we need to worry about simple failures of METROLOGY in our machines. GIGO. Economic calculations can be good math and good logic, but they're based on totally imaginary figures. When you use inflation and unemployment figures that have no connection to reality, your result will have no relation to reality. When you hold a natural variable like interest rate constant, your equations can't even begin to work. Polls may use statistical formulas correctly, but they ask atrociously loaded questions. Everything is based on shared lies.

At the end:

Mechanical engineers and civil engineers do understand the limitations of math and logic. Engineers (except for "software engineers", who are just programmers) have to deal with the real world. They work with the real world in their college classes, and learn HARD lessons on the job. They understand deeply that steel has a breaking point, concrete can be undermined by water and tree roots, wood can be destroyed by termites, etc. The logic of tree roots belongs in the realm of wisdom, not Boole.

Even competent programmers understand that Boole is a poor representation of real-life decisions. We learn quickly that the human versions of IF, AND, OR, XOR are not at all the same as the Boolean versions. A useful program has to adjust for these limitations in order to take advantage of the rigorous and fast logic-math that computers can do.

And finally, "animals and computers" DO NOT BELONG ON THE SAME SIDE of the bridge. Smart animals are much closer to God's wisdom than smart people. Smart people do in fact think like computers, or actually the other way around. Digital computers are Boolean because they were designed by Boolean-brained people.

= = = = =

Later contranote: I wrote that human IF, AND, OR, XOR are not the same as the computer versions. This is only 3/4 true. Computers use Boole for AND, OR, XOR, so they disagree with human actions. The computer version of IF is much closer to the human version than the Boolean.

The Boolean IF in symbolic logic doesn't start with a cause and lead to a result. Implication examines four different T/F combinations of cause and result, and assigns a validity to those four combos. The validity ratings are weird and completely useless for analyzing or making real decisions.

A computer's IF is like a non-subjunctive IF in language, or more simply a WHEN. Check the cause or current situation. WHEN the cause matches expectations, implement one result. WHEN the cause doesn't match expectations, do another result, or do nothing.

Labels: Metrology, Shared Lie

  ¶ 5:14 AM