It Is By Logic That We Prove, But By Intuition That We Discover. To Know How To Criticize Is Good, To Know How To Create Is Better

“IT IS BY LOGIC THAT WE PROVE, BUT BY INTUITION THAT WE DISCOVER. TO KNOW HOW TO CRITICIZE IS GOOD, TO KNOW HOW TO CREATE IS BETTER.”
Your Name
Course Name
Course Description
Professor
University
Date of Submission
Introduction
Logic is the lifeblood that feeds scientific discovery. It’s the underlying framework that scientists use to arrive at veritable and logical conclusions that can withstand scientific critique and scrutiny. Logic informs scientific research as it provides a unified platform that can be repeatedly used to arrive at the same conclusion. Scientific theories rely on logic as evidential proof for the authenticity and validity of their claims.However, while logic provides proof for scientific ideas, intuition acts as aspringboardfor new discovery. On the other hand, creation produces new thought, concepts or ideas that can withstand the rigor of scientific scrutiny, whereas criticism necessitates continuous improvement in the pre-existing concept or idea. In attempting to extrapolate thestatement that, “It’s by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover. To know how to criticize is good, to know how to create is better” the essay paper will draw from the works of Darwin (1910), Kandel (2006) and Poincare (1953). The essay will be limited to making arguments in support of the assertions made in the aforementioned statement.
It’s by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover. Indeed it’s by logic that we prove the validity or invalidity of a new discovery, concept or idea. But what is discovery and how does it differ from logic? According to Poincare (2006), discovery is, “The process in which the human mind seems to borrow least from the exterior world, in which it acts, or appears to act, only by itself….” (p.165). Thus discovery does seem to originate from independent thought processes, thus implying that it’s an internal rather than external process. Logic ensures consistency between future and previous ideas, concepts or discoveries. Kandel (2006) illustratesthis stating thatHelmoltz’s discovery that axons of nerve cells took longer to transmit electrical signals as compared to wires and that this was accomplished through wavelike stimulus at the rate of 90 feet/second, was intuitively conceived through scientific logic. It was founded on scientific logic because apparently, later studies proved his discovery correct, that indeed electrical signals in nerve cells did not decrease in strength while in transmission. The fact that there was consistency between Helmoltz’s discovery and later discoveries suggests that both relied on standard logic. Not only does logic ensure consistency in ideological thought process, but it also systematizes the discovery process. Given the consistency of later studies with Helmholtz’s findings, it can be deduced that these discoveries employed standard logic which significantly decreased any possibility for outcome variability. Later studies showed thateven though nerve cells exhibited a decline in conduction speed, this decline happened to permit active participation which was critical in ensuring that the signal received at the big toe was equallytransmitted to the spinal cord. Therefore through logic, later studies consistently proved Helmholtz’s discovery correct due to relatively similar outcomes that were achieved through logic.Similarly, Darwin (1910) made a fascinating discovery that supports the argument that it’s through logic that we prove. While discussing natural selection, Darwin posited that no country was in existence in which all of its “..native inhabitants were so perfectlyadapted to each other and to the physical conditions under which they lived to the extent that none of them could anyhow be improved” (p.145). Just like Helmholtz’s assertions on the nerve cells and electrical signal propagation, Darwin’s discovery on continuous perfection of organisms was based on standard logic since none of the later studies has been able to challenge its argument. However, it’s Darwin’s intuition that led him to explore the subject of natural selection which eventually produced the discovery. Thus although logic is good, intuition is better as it is what sparks the passion and interest that subsequently leads to newdiscoveries. Basically, logic only validates what has already been established through intuition even though it is what informs the continued relevance of scientific discoveries. Thereforeif logic proves a scientific discovery correct, then it implies that logic was part of the intuition process that led to the discovery. Similarly, in “Science and Methods”, Henry Poincare (2006) intuitively discovered that there was a connection between his findings on the study of arithmetic questions and other similarprevious studies. Though his intent was to arrive at a different result, standard logic ensured that his results did not vary with previous studies. To support the argument that it’s through intuition that we discover, and logic that we prove,...