Abstract

Logic, as the theory of reasoning, traditionally focuses upon the validity of natural language arguments. During the millennia several logical systems have evolved, each using a specific set of logical constants validating some part of the natural language arguing. Therefore, at the time when reasoning of empirical knowledge entered the scene, it was not surprising to find logical systems having their set of logical constants validating that natural phenomenon. The aim of this paper is to question the strength of such systems and also to sketch a complementary logical system aiming at validating comprehensive empirical knowledge reasoning. In outline, this is done as follows. By listening to scientists discussing empirical issues, there has been historically accepted that they make arguing valid by using the notions of confirmation and falsification in a logical constant manner. Philosopher analyses of this phenomenon have evolved interesting logical systems, however including both insights and paradoxes. The aim here is to use a standard extensional logical system and add what I call a test predicate. The evolving system will derive theorems like empirical knowledge-gaining program having special non-extensional, non-inductive and correlative features suitable for comprehensive empirical knowledge gaining