Question

...
Jack

Non-Sequitur - Almost Certain?

This is actually something I posted a while ago on a debate forum after having one too many drinks. Anyway, my argument was:

Maths is used in science. Therefore, Mathematics must be more useful than science.



My answer to this is that just because Mathematics is used in science does not mean that Mathematics is more useful than science. Not to mention that mathematics is also considered a branch of science.

Now some of you may think I've answered my own question here. However, I just wanted to know if you concur?

Thanks.
asked on Monday, Jan 27, 2020 04:54:25 PM by Jack

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bobby Brown
0
Drinking at night causes one to pose illogical fallacies.
All people should stop drinking.
answered on Monday, Jan 27, 2020 05:10:47 PM by Bobby Brown

Comments
...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0
When you come with an argument like that, break it down to the rule. For example,

If X is used in Y, then X must be more useful than Y.

The next step is to try to prove the rule wrong (or casually "absurd") by creating other rules:

A cigarette lighter is used in a car, therefore, a cigarette lighter is more useful than a car.
A picture of a clown is used in a hospital, therefore, a picture of a clown is more useful than a hospital.
etc.

You can quickly see that the rule doesn't work.

{date-time stamp}Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 12:33 PM{/date-time stamp}
Got an anonymous comment:


Math makes science work.
The lighter does NOT make the car work.



Here the premise has been swapped for a new one that changes the argument. This new argument would go a follows:

Math makes science work.
Therefore, Mathematics must be more useful than science.

Again, same strategy as I mentioned earlier:

If X makes Y work, then X is more useful than Y.

Water makes life work, therefore, water is more useful than life.

Another problem is the ambiguity of "useful." Useful for what? A flashlight is more useful for seeing in the dark than a battery even though a battery makes a flashlight work.

There is also a problem when the thing that makes the other thing work can easily be substituted. For example, fossil fuels makes cars work but because cars also run on electricity and most likely will much more so in the future, it is or will be difficult to argue that fossil fuels are more useful than those things fossil fuels currently power.
answered on Monday, Jan 27, 2020 05:44:51 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Comments