I totally agree with Prof. Shafiq,

A researcher is a phylosopher at the beginning- lots of thougths and lots of queries. Then gradually becomes a Logical thinker- ability to reason of why, how and what is happening relative to the known and existing facts. And Facts are always verifiable.

Research has to be logical, analytical, methodical and cyclical.

But what is a 'fact' when you do not perceive it yourself? And because of the dynamics of the world two events always differ in details so how can you practically verify so-called facts that are reported by others?

For instance:

Event A and B consist of 13 different components, but differ somewhat in 4 out of 13 components. Those that focus on the 4 components that differ between the two events will conclude that the two events A and B differ. Those that focus on the 9 components that do not differ between the two events will conclude that the two events A and B will not differ..... In how many so-called replicated studies, all 13 components are investigated simultaneously? Is this a fact in science practice/application?

The point is, there are many things in our life seems to be against logic or far away from reality, but after years of research and scientific developments, these Phenomena turns to logical facts

Both.

I try to be comprehensive about my research whether it be the logic, the rigor, the pragmatism, the techniques and strategies and yes the philosophy.This overarching approach yields a better understanding and appreciation and if the stars are aligned also meaningful results. .

The question begs something that does not go without saying. When understanding rightly philosophy - or else, when having s rigorous education in philosophy, then it is clear that there is no opposition, preference or distinction between philosophy and logic. A solid education in philosophy crosses through a well-fed logic - both classical and non-classical logics.

Logics, nowadays, is not an organon of/for knowledge, any longer.

Dear @Jeanan, My answer can not be negative because Mathematics is built on logical thinking.

Researcher should be philosopher in a sense that there should be a technical logic behind every thing happening during research!

I find this discussion very interesting. Many, many years ago I took a couple courses in logic in a PhD program in Engineering Management and found logic very fascinating but I could not figure out how to apply it to my studies and to everyday life. Later in my own field of operations management I encountered Eli Goldratt, a PhD physicist who was a business consultant and guru. He is the inventor of theory of constraints. In the early 1990’s he was forced to develop a practical set of logic tools based on necessary condition and sufficiency condition logic. Over time he developed six different thinking processes tools with different purposes. These tools have been used by managers in for-profit, for-purpose, government, individuals, etc. to answer three questions:

1. What to change? Of all the possible things in an organization or in your life that can be changed what one or two things if changed can cause significant improvement in the system? The current reality tree is used to answer this question.

2. To what to change? Of all the possible solutions that could be implemented what is the solution that will create a win-win (no compromises) for all stakeholders? The evaporating cloud is used to construct the problem as a conflict between two actions. Assumptions are surfaced and an action to break an assumption is identified. This is the starting point for a win-win solution and additional actions are identified. The future reality tree is used to build the complete solution.

3. How to cause the change? How can we develop a simple but effective implementation plan? The obstacles to taking the above actions are identified and a sequenced project network constructed. The prerequisite tree is used here.

There is a set of challenges, categories of legitimate reservation, used to help developers and listeners to construct solid logical arguments. Thousands of organizations around the world have used these focused logic tools to rapidly improve. Many years ago I had a college swimmer in one of my classes use these logic tools to improve her swimming skills. She won an Olympic gold medal in the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta at the age of 26! This illustrates the power of using logic to focus on a very few leverage points in a system.

Dr. Goldratt explains the power of cause and effect thinking in the first video and Professor Vicky Mabin provides a basics workshop on the TOC logical thinking processes (TP) tools in the second video at:

http://www.tocico.org/?page=tp_portal

Other presentations on this “thinking processes” portal describe the use of the TP in various organizations. There are 13 portals at the TOCICO website that provide tutorials in the use of theory of constraints in various functions and industries.

These TP logic tools have also been used by over 8 million children in a couple dozen countries how to think logically. Three TP tools are used here. See:

http://www.tocforeducation.com/

The evaporating cloud is used to frame and solve problems (viewed as conflicts). The negative branch is used to surface negative effects from taking an action before one takes an action. The ambitious target tree is used to determine the obstacles and actions to overcome the obstacles to achieve an ambitious target. These logic tools have been used in kindergartens to prisons to help individuals to use logic.

I am unsure of whether my discussion is valid with respect to your question. I have tried to introduce you to a pragmatic set of logic tools that provide powerful answers to problems. Logic is a powerful research methodology; each hypothesis should be structured logically determining what is given (the assumptions), what is the cause to be studied and what is the proposed effect and why? This is the approach taken in analyzing “undesirable effects” (surface problems) in TOC to determine the underlying cause (core problem).

Of cause philosophy and logic are equally important to researchers but, philosophy-creatures are surely human while logic-creatures can be robots.

Logic is a part of Philosophy.

Regards

Dear Raveendra,

Of cause philosophy and logic have very close relationship, but I think logic is a product of Philosophy.

Regards

Dear Jeanan,

Dear All,

Long time ago “researchers” (= specialised brainworker) used logic as a method for finding solutions for practical aims and very general essential questions. These days most of very specialised and “superficial” researchers are not interested in philosophy. Their label of PhD often is but an empty title expressing some familiarity in a very narrow field.

It seems Philosophy has been shunted backseat by Empiricism and Objective Technology. Will there be a revival, now that Empiricism and technology have reached the end of their tether, so to speak, and failed to deliver on the promises fo freeing society and individuals of all ills?

Regards

I think “practical” philosophy (such as philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of language…) serves as a very important role in the foundation of each science; even a little bit “metabolism” happens there would produce a great forward in the related science. But this was often neglected!

Dear Geng Ouyang,

What is philosophy of language?

Dear András，

People believe that "Philosophy of Language" refers to an area of philosophy concerned with the syntactic properties as well as the meaning and reference of linguistic expressions, the things implied or indicated by linguistic expressions and the attributes of linguistic expressions as a function of linguistic and conversational contexts, such as some of Noam Chomsky’s work.

Regards

Traditionally, Philosophy can be  defined by the way of living of the people that was cultivated by inhabitants of that land or country over thousands of years. Thus, Chinese culture had been very different than Indian culture, ancient Greece or European culture. However, regional philosophies are changing very rapidly in our global village now a days, and so are the ideas in our research arena.

The philosophy building the old dogmas are changing fast in this age of rapid communication network. The old dogmas are going to be banished soon.  As far as modern research is concerned, the researchers should try to keep an unbiased, open mind with a broad vision ahead. The RG network will flourish more with time to fulfill intellectual needs. I think we are heading the right direction. 

Dear All,

Thanks for your interesting participations... I really believe that  the researcher is a philosopher and a Logical thinker.

Philosophy and logic should work together in any field of research

Talking about our work, we have “applied philosophy (such as philosophy of mathematics)—theoretical philosophy” and “applied science (such as applied mathematics for technical operations)—theoretical science”.

If we want to rank them in an order, theoretical philosophy is on the top, the second position is applied philosophy, the third position is theoretical science and the forth position is applied science. They four have relations among and between, but some are closed while some are loosely.

In our working period of theoretical science, nothing new can be attained without philosophy; while in our working period of applied science, the relationship between our work and philosophy is very loose; but anyhow, logics are always there.

I want to mention to Quyang that mathematics is a pure science in the sense it is the most logical amongst all sciences; philosophical definitions appear in cases like concept of zero, infinity etc.  

In my own life as a lifelong researcher in biochemistry, the  philosophical  ideas and speculations  appeared in my mind at the end of logical pursuit. I think this is how it generally happens. 

Dear Tushar，

In our science (mathematics),  most concepts are the basic bricks for the structures; they are in the bottom as fundamental things. So, scientific concepts have close relationship with philosophy to tell how and why they exist------ objectively and subjectively. Logics are the relationships among concepts in every field of our science, including mathematics.

Thank you!

Jeanan - 

There appear to be at least a couple of other people on this thread who also had been introduced to logic as an integral part of philosophy, so there seems no contradiction between them. The ancient philosophers used logic and observation, predating the scientific method, but definitely paving the way for it.

Perhaps this is just a matter of semantics. Researchers need to be able to proceed in a logical manner, no circular arguments, for example, but they also need creativity and to realize that there is a great deal that we do not understand.  So if your question relates to inspiration, yes, I think inspiration is an important asset, as well as logic. They may not be completely separable though.  Logic can, in a sense be very inspiring. 

In your field of design and art, I can only imagine that inspiration and logic might be more easily separable.  Art might be said to have more of a spiritual component. But then, the pursuit of truth in the natural sciences may be considered to have that quality as well. Speak of circular arguments!  (Well, I guess that is technically not a circular argument.)  I'll excuse myself by saying that your question is a multi-layered one.    :-) 

So perhaps we might say that philosophy is logic, and more. And sometimes when someone uses the word "philosophy," they might mean the part of philosophy beyond logic, just as someone may use the word "animal," to mean a nonhuman animal, whereas others would mean people too. That is a matter of semantics. 

Thanks for the question. 

Cheers - Jim 

Long ago, people used to say every branch of our science is philosophy; they are all included in philosophy.

But now we know we should not say that because philosophy as well as each science has different focus and different forms.

Our science history tells us that a researcher with philosophy and logic qualities is more possible to yield different (better) results.

A university course in logic (converting word arguments to symbols, and analyzing the validity) might be taught in the Philosophy Department, or in the Mathematics Department.  I find that interesting to contemplate.   

We can see a fact in our science history: if some concepts are not scientific, the relationships between or among them are “unscientific”-------the relating logics (about word arguments?) are “unscientific” and our cognitive fruits in this field are “unscientific”.

What is the close relationship between concepts and logics------no logics without concepts?

Could we have a short break for following dish?

When we study ”the meaning of zero" and the location of zero in “number spectrum” in our mathematics, an unbalanced defect can be easily discovered: “zero" appears on one side of the “number spectrum” as a kind of mathematical language telling people a situation of “ nothing, not-being,…”; but on the other side of the “number spectrum” we lack of another kind of mathematical language telling people an opposite situation to “zero”------“ something, being,…”.

We need a new number symbol with opposite meaning to zero locating at the opposite side of zero in the “number spectrum” to make up the structural incompleteness of “number spectrum” and to complete the existence of “zero”.

Sincerely yours,

Geng

Dear Geng,

Good philosophical view point about zero..... Thanks

Dear Jeanan,

Dear All,

As to your question, having philosophical approach and aims as well as thinking logically are not contradictions. In spite that these days philosophy has not been taught as it should be, a thinking man (even a researcher) will feel the need to think logically on essential questions of existence. I think one can have philosophical ideas after having attained some maturity. Thus, philosophical thinking (= responsibility) is a developed state of a logically reflecting researcher. Many do not achieve this state since they have no time and demand because of pursuing success and money.

Dear Jeanan,

Unless the subject matter specifies otherwise, research should probably proceed logically. Sometimes, the subject matter calls for renouncing traditional logic. The best example in my own research is theology. Specifically, theodicy, a doctrine of God, can call for setting logic aside. Concretely, Miguel de Unamuno, following his liberal Protestant sources of the Ritschlian school, holds that God is superior to logic. Hence He can be infinite and finite at the same time. This runs contrary to logic, but it simply means that God is so powerful, that while unlimited, He has the power to limit Himself, to assume human form-- as in the case of the man-God Christ--.  In this case, if believers grow more spiritual, they gradually remove the self-imposed limits of deity  until godhood once again signifies unlimitedness.  Now, if you stick to Aristotelian logic, what I have just said makes no sense.  Yet researchers of contemporary theology need to free themselves from traditional cognitive shackles to proceed with their investigation.

In start, researcher is a philospher but using facts he can conclude his philosphies upon basis of logic.

traditionally logic has been considered as the sub category of philosophy, and for a researcher it is difficult to detach himself/herself both from logic (idea and proof) as well as the philosophy. for me a researcher should be a blend of both philosophy and logic.  

Our science history proves that philosophic and logic ideas and techniques are needed, especially when we are doing some fundamental researches in some of our knowledge (science) areas, so that the researchers are able to have either deeper or wider insights to combine different ideas, methods and techniques and pay enough attention to the relationships between and among things in different branches of our knowledge (science), borrow some well (better) developed ideas, methods and techniques from each other-----we even have Biomimetic.

It all depends upon the person asking the question who is looking outward upon the world for the answer. We seek, but we do not find. If we do find, it is what we expect to find. If that happens, then we fail to find the truth because we answered our own questions. This is what I think politics is all about -- answering questions that have nothing to do with the truth or with reality. This is the danger of being a researcher. Most people are afraid of the truth as if it were some kind of Pandora’s Box. Therefore, researchers should be both philosophers and logical -- but most importantly, capable of putting self aside for knowledge to reveal itself. I’m working on an exciting paper. I’m saying that lack of literature is cultural death. When we fail to think, we fail to read and write. I’m saying that the educational system is broken -- not the children. As a creative writer, I am researching into this area and looking for the truth. I can’t look at this problem through my eyes. I have to look at this problem through the eyes of the other. It all began with birth. Check out this very short video on TedTalks and watch Ami Klin’s brilliant assertions about how focus and attention are required for discovering and learning. I think of this 15-month-old baby as a beginning researcher with a clean slate, free of bias and cultural interference. This is where it all begins, looking for the truth and making the connections. It happens automatically. Seek and you shall find -- if you think like a child. That’s my final answer. What do you think?

In my opinion, philosophical approach and logic both are interlinked for a researcher.

A researcher starts with philosophy but in long run to support the philosophy, logic are required!

So, a researcher should have philosophical approach supported by logic!!

Geng, you bring out a good point.  Now, if I were researching the life cycle of a specific bacteria and its application to a specific disease, could you please explain how your example would help me in arriving at conclusions so that someone suffering from this specific disease would be helped?  If the conclusions are false, then it won't help them.  If I can find the truth, then I can help them.  How would you use your philosophy to do your experiments on petri dishes and document the results?  I am curious to learn about your approach to these kinds of problems.  Remember, that when we find the result, we must be able to document them so that others can do the same thing.  When we discover anything, it is critical to share what we know and to show the path to how we arrived at our conclusions.  Many of these discoveries are posted in journals for other people to read about.  One of the reasons for doing this is to ensure that the outcome is truth.  Another reason for doing this is because what you discover may be the cornerstone for another person's great discovery.  I'm thinking of Eadweard MuybridgE AND Louis Le Prince who were the inventors of motion pictures.  If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have motion pictures today.  That's an example of why arriving at the truth so that everybody else can build upon it.  So I'm curious about your answer, Geng.

Dear Jeanan,

You probably know that I dedicate my professional life to the research of the arts.  No art seems as abstract, as elusive, as music.  Yet even music, to be understood, requires logic.  Western music from Pythagoras' time to the early twentieth century, when tonal, proceeds by mathematical relations.  As Juan David García Bacca wrote in his 1990 Filosofía de la música, every music has its own philosophy, and cannot be understood without first extracting its philosophical principles.  Many great composers followed a logical canon. The example par excellence is the master of counterpoint of all times, German Baroque composer Johann Sebastian Bach.  In the early 20th century, a Spanish composer whom I have researched, Manuel de Falla, based his own music both on the principles of Newtonian physics and on the philosophy of music of the mid-nineteenth-century French philosopher Louis Lucas.  To sum up, there is no music without philosophy, and no worthwhile philosophy which has not inspired music.

Dear Corinne，thank you for your frank opinion.

What I am talking about is the very fundamental things which are close to philosophic and logic ideas and techniques. But in applying science we can not see their relationship that clearly; for example, for the diseases causes (sometimes a disease may be nothing to do with bacteria at all), more observations and scientific reasoning are needed. In our daily life, when we want to wear clothes, it would be funny if one asks the philosophic and logic ideas and techniques of which arm should be put into sleeve first.

Sincerely yours, Geng

“One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes... and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.”

― Eleanore Roosevelt

Very good idea, Ms. Jeanan Shafiq!

Theoretical things are expressed by words; and the carriers of the theoretical things are expressed by actions------ words, choices, responsibilities..