Western Scientific Logic

Western scientific logic is actually three-valued or ternary logic. While it is based on two-valued or Aristotelian logic, scientific method admits the existence of a third truth value: unknown, indeterminate or undetermined. For example, the truth value of a scientific hypothesis is indeterminate until it can be tested by experiment. The results of the experiment determine whether the hypothesis is evaluated as true or false, and if true, promoted to the status of a scientific theory.

This three-valued non-Aristotelian logic is the engine of thought the Enlightenment thinkers used to enable the rise of science from the obscurity of the Dark Ages to the heights of technological advancement we enjoy today. Unfortunately, the remnants of medieval thought, based solely on two-valued Aristotelian logic, remain with us today in the form of fundamentalist theology and other primitive forms of unscientific reasoning.

The role of belief and assumptions in Aristotelian thought is central when viewed from the human perspective. When the only possible evaluations of a given statement are absolutely true or false, the natural human tendency is to make an evaluation based solely on belief, rather than an experimental test. This kind of black-and-white, untested snap judgment has led to the extreme, judgmental dogmatism we commonly see in Western religious and political thinking. Belief is, of course, a very unscientific way of reasoning about anything beyond the most elementary material subjects.

If ternary logic has enabled such progress in scientific thought, why has it not been more widely adopted by people in general? The answer lies in the human intolerance for ambiguity or indeterminacy. People want a definite answer. But many assertions cannot be evaluated immediately: statements about the future, for example. The truth of a statement such as “It will rain tomorrow” cannot be determined with perfect confidence in the present.

The invention of statistics and probability allowed us to make statements like: “There is a 20% chance of rain tomorrow.” Probabilistic logic allows us to assign a percentage of truthfulness or accuracy to a variable, statement or assertion. Statistical truth can be evaluated in the present, even for statements that refer to the future. Therefore it satisfies the human need for evaluation, even as it makes the truth fuzzier.

But is it satisfying to say, “There is a 37% chance that God exists”? No, we want to know definitely. The problem is that it is inappropriate to apply our material standards of relative, objective empirical truth to absolute transcendental entities like God, the soul and the spiritual world. The logic of spiritual life is subjective, not objective. We can say with certainty that a statement like “The book is on the table” is either true or false. But when evaluate a statement like “Does God exist?”, to evaluate it logically at all we may have to amend the assertion to something like, “Does God exist for you?”

The answer to this question, and questions like it, depend to a great extent upon our viewpoint. Our possible viewpoints are determined by our ontology. So if my ontology includes the viewpoint that I am incapable of learning French, it will be impossible for anyone to teach me the language, no matter how hard they may try. Similarly, if a particular person’s ontology, or collection of viewpoints, includes the existence of a Supreme Being, then there is some possibility of them perceiving the existence of God. Otherwise it is impossible.

Because all questions ultimately are issues of consciousness, our ontological stance and collection of viewpoints ultimately determine the range and quality of our experience. How we evaluate the truthfulness of statements about transcendental objects and entities is determined by our ontology. One of the most important elements of our ontology is our logic, for logic is the process we use to evaluate the truthfulness of any statement or assertion. Therefore the type of logic we use in reasoning must be ontologically appropriate to the subject, or it will lead to inaccurate and unsatisfactory conclusions.

Next: Three-valued Logic