[falcor84]

> Biologists don't try to reason everything from first principles.

What do you mean? The biologists I've had the privilege of working with absolutely do try to. Obviously some work at a higher level of abstraction than others, but I've not met any who apply any magical thinking to the actual biological investigation. In particular (at least in my milieu), I have found that the typical biologist is more likely to consider quantum effects than the typical physicist. On the other hand (again, from my limited experience), biologists do tend to have some magical thinking about how statistics (and particularly hypothesis testing) works, but no one is perfect.

[svnt]

Setting up reasoning from first principles vs magical thinking is a false dichotomy and an implicit swipe.

[falcor84]

Ok, mea culpa. So what distinction did you have in mind?

[svnt]

Reasoning is one information-processing process, performed by humans, with bounds on what it can accomplish. It works in a limited context and is inherently incomplete and imperfect. Other non-logical processes, emergent processes, parallel processes such as evolution, process information in ways reasoning cannot. It perhaps should not be surprising that we may have internal systems of understanding that follow these principles, instead of only those of logic or reasoning.

Reasoning from first principles cannot span very far in reality, as for starters the complexity of the argument quickly overwhelms our capacity for it. Its numerous other limits have been well-documented.

Logicomix, Gödel Escher Bach are some common entry points.

[anton-c]

>Gödel Escher Bach

I'm kinda new here but am surprised I haven't seen this book mentioned more. Maybe I just haven't seen it or it's old news but it seems right up HNs alley.