Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

You're absolutely right about the card test. It is a simple - but not trivial - exercise in logic. By applying logic to the problem the answer can be worked out, just as in any other deduction problem. It just isn't obvious to most people, and most do not bother to work it out.Peopel do not operate on pure logic - and for good reasons. Not even Star Trek Vulcans really operate on pure logic.

Anyone who actually addressed the problem logically would not be tricked - it really is very simple if you think about it. That people are "tricked" indicates that their thinking is not logical.

Applying logic, formally or informally is sufficient to solve the problem posed by the cards. So your "real-world logic" is not even the informal application of logical thinking. All the problem requires is the ability to consider the possible results of turning over each card and identifying whether one of them could contradict the proposition.Indeed at this point I have to ask what possible result could falsify your position.h

YOu raise a good point. The basic concepts of logic are built into language - although they are usually not rigorously applied. (By the basic concepts I mean negation, conjunction and disjunction - as well as the concept of "truth").On the other hand logic can be reagarded as a formalisation of these basic principles of language.IMHO the latter view is more accurate. The basic logical principles we find in language are there because they are useful - they give the language a good deal of power that it would not otherwise have. Logic, then, is derived from formalising and rigourously applying the principles adopted for more pragmatic reasons.e

YOu are still beign very vague. If you are claiming that most people can recognise obvious fallacies when presented with them in a classroom situation then your point seems very trivial. Especially as I do not believe you can rightly call the classroom a "real-world" situation while at the same time attacking a test on the grounds that it is abstracted rather than grounded in everyday activities.On the other hand we see all sorts of fallacious logic being presented.Such as THis

quote:

---

You are free to believe whatever you want to. You can even believe Dan Brown's FICTION, Da Vinci Code. That does not change The authenticity of the Bible one bit. Many kings and rulers tried to destroy this book. They all failed. Inspite of all these, Bible is still a best seller.

---

Not only do we have a blatant appeal to popularity the author fails to notice that he is simultaneously attacking another best-seller.