investigation, definitions & logic

Ask a few people what "forensics" means, and (thanks to certain gory TV
dramas that spoil your appetite right in the middle of your evening meal, if
you eat in front of the tube, that is) most of them will say that it has to
do with
solving murders, using scientific knowledge and tools.

Now here is a published definition {Houghton-Mifflin e-edition, the American
Heritage (copyright) Dictionary of the English language:

1. The art or study of formal debate; argumentation.

2. The use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in
criminal or civil courts of law.

Notice two things about it: a. The most prevalent usage (at least, until
the TV shows) has to do with formal debate (which has a colon after it,
meaning start over again); and it has to do with argumentation. If any
reader believes that formal debate or argumentation generally, deals in
formal logic... no, no, no, no, no... The formal part applies to a
structuring of how people should behave during a debate.

A whole section in a library could be devoted to what the *ART* of
argumentation is all about, and I could copy and paste a few thousand words
here quoting in copious detail from Dr. David Zarefsky, one of the world's
foremost thinkers and teachers on it. But let me just say that merely the
citing of all the credentials, and awards, and positions Dr. Zarefsky has
accumulated would make this message far too long. Latest info I have on him
had him at Northwestern U. (Evanston, Ill.), where he was Owen L. Coon
Professor of Argumentation and Debate and professor of Communications
Studies. And, also, he has served as President of the National
Communications Association (one of the oldest and most respected in the U.
S.) and is a former editor of the journal 'Argumentation and Advocacy.'

Therefore, some of the assertions I shall make on the subject of the nature
and limitations on this thread... my actual intent to make a number of
"observations" concerning THE DOING OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, AND
THE ORGANIZATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA SO DERIVED... rely upon
*INFORMAL LOGIC* more than on formal logic. Let me unravel the assertion
by making a sweeping statement {at least I didn't just jump up and fling a
generalization at you without building ramping up to it (:<)}
To wit: Formal logic is useful in programming computers and applying
formulas that have been worked out by such great synthesists as Newton,
Einstein, to some calculations. But formal logic is something controlled
from outside. (So if this sounds like something John Edser has maintained,
then get used to it. Dr. Zarefsky would back him up all the way on this
point... though not on all "the Edser's" points, I suspect.)

Oh, the "subject" caption of this thread didn't say that. But the reason is
that it would not fit the space alloted.

Okay, enough for this first, merely INTRODUCTORY, message on this new
thread. So let me end with a flat out
summary statement:

Formal logic is one tool (among many) useful in some narrowly confined and
controlled applications within the work or scientific investigation and
interpretation. (And in at least one subsequent message I shall address how
formal logic ONLY feeds back to the user the ASSUMPTIONS fed into it, and
additional computations derivable only pursuant to THOSE assumptions.)

(To be continued)

g



.