Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?

The inclusion of Logic as a science, would greatly enhance the understanding of ID as a science, if it is understood in its prpoer context and usage. In my discusions with those on the PBS discussion, it was never offered with a simple yes or no, as to wheather Logic constituted a Scientific Method. I heard much about how useful logic was in the formation of arguments and how it was not stricly a science, but was never offered any valid reasons as to why it was not. I purpose this discussion to demonstrate its value for this expressed purpose. In my view it is not only the starting point of any science but the ending and refining of it as well. It in and of iteself can establish the validity of a designer or the possibility of a designer. And Of course this is the crux of the issue, wheather a mechanism can be established through a method of scientific endeavours to establish ID. the other arguments for the design as offered by Behe and others, in my view only enhance the Logic proposition proposed here. Thank yyou.D Bertot
D BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : An edit was necessary do to the fact that I did not realize a more detailed discussion was initally required.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Logic is not a science because it is not a form of knowledge gathering through observation and testing; rather, logic derives valid (which is not to say true) statements from assumed axioms through a series of transformations.Logic, properly understood, is a form of mathematics. One way you can think of logic is as a mathematics with only two numbers; 1 and 0. It's not to say that logic has no place in the sciences, but logic is not science, any more than mathematics is. Observation is the beginning of science; hypothesis testing is the refining. And, of course, there is no end to science because models can always be improved (or even refuted) by additional observations. To say that something is "valid", strictly speaking, is not to say that it is true. A valid proposition is one that has been derived legitimately from its premises. But the truth of the conclusion depends on the premises being true. And ultimately, the axioms upon which logic are based are true only because they are assumed to be. That's no basis for a legitimate science.If you pick appropriate premises, you can obviously make a valid syllogism that "proves" the existence of God. But that proof is, by definition, circular; because you've chosen precisely the premises needed to reach that conclusion. Not even Behe seems to think this is true; in a recent trial he appeared to admit that his vaunted "intelligent design" was as scientific as astrological fortune-telling.Scientific endeavors cannot establish ID because ID is not scientific.

Message 51
Testable theories based on evidence that make predictions and that can be falsified.
The scientific process. Then you are on the wrong foot: no scientific theory can be proven, only logic and math can be proven, with conclusion following from precepts if the construction is valid, and the result being true if the precepts are true.Scientific theory can be invalidated, and another mark of science is re-evaluating, reforming or replacing theories that have been invalidated.Ibid Message 55
It's simple: if ID is true it can stand on it's own. If you know logic then you know that disproving {A} does not of itself prove {B} in any way. All you have is not{A}.Creationists and IDers often mention "alternative explanations" and "different interpretations" of evidence as examples of scientific principles, yet they NEVER seem to present what those explanations are, ...... nor do they consider that the logical conclusion of having two "interpretations" of the evidence of {what is reality} is that there must be two realities, ...... or that one or more "interpretation" is false, and you are back at one "interpretation" that is valid. That is because ID -- as practiced -- is the same as creationism, is formulated by creationists, and is used by creationists. You classify yourself as a "creationist/IDer" (Message 51). Yet the impression of your proposed new topic does not give me confidence that you truly mean this. Message 1
Not on it's own. Logic is used in science, as is math, but to be science you need testable theories based on evidence that make predictions and that can be falsified. The scientific process is more than just logic.If all you want to discuss is logic, that is philosophy, not science. No, it is the testing of concepts against the reality of evidence, predicting things that should occur if your conclusions (theories) are correct, and passing falsification tests. But with only logic all you have is a philosophical conclusion. If that conclusion cannot be tested then it is not science. If that conclusion is not based on evidence you do not have science. It's called doing science. Message 56
Do you realize that the logical conclusion of ID is that not one thing in the bible need be true?Ibid Message 58
But the logic of the argument does not depend on the belief of people: it is either good logic or it isn't, it is either based on fact or it isn't. What this amounts to is judging the argument by the person and not the content - an ad hominum fallacy.Ibid Message 60 & Message 62
Type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.Welcome to the fray, Dawn.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Logic is not a science. It is more properly understood as either a brancjh of philopshy or as mathematics. It is certainly a useful tool used by scientists but even if ID did make substantial use of logic that in itself would not make ID scientific.Logic in and of itself can establish nothing that is not provided in the premises it is given to work with. Thus, logic in and of itself cannot establish the existence of a dsigner or even the possibility of one - or anything else, other than logical theorems.

Logic is part of the scientific method, though it is not itself a science.The scientific method goes like this:(1) Think of a hypothesis
(2) Find the consequences of the hypothesis
(3) Compare these consequences with reality and see if they fit.Now, in step 2, when we find the consequences of the hypothesis, we mean the consequences which follow logically from the hypothesis.For example, given the hypothesis that no member of the Anatidae is black, together with the information that swans are members of the Anatidae, logic tells us that the existence of a black swan would falsify the hypothesis. The observation of black swans (in Australia) then tells us that the hypothesis is false. Logic in and of itself can tell us nothing about the real world. It can, for example, tell us that IF you are a wombat, AND IF all wombats are green, THEN you are green, but it can't tell me whether the premises are true. For that, I'd have to look at you to see if you're a wombat, and at wombats to see if they're all green.At some point we have to observe reality, or we can draw no conclusions about it.

Welcome to the Fray, Thank you. Many people have responed here and I will try and synthesis most of the arguments that I believe to be faulty in the responses that I currently see. The first one I see is that not a single person referenced the dictionary in any of their responeses. Now this is not my definition, Logic is the SCIENCE OF VALID REASONING. You cannot simply say yourself Logic is this or that from your own perspectives. Its included in the dictionary as a Science because it follows the SIMPLE principles of the the root word SCIENCE, that being Knowledge or the acuisition of knowledge, of course how we obtain that is of course the point. The further expanded definition of science is offered to only elaborate on the root word. Before we lose sight of what is excally at issue here., it must be understood that its is not our responsibility in this discussion to prove or demonstrate the existence of God or for you to validate ToE beyond any doubt. The purpose is to simply demonstrate that the universe, earth and all material in it is a product of a designer or POSSIBLE designer, from a scientific standpoint. To say this can not be done from the science of logic is an ASSERTION, it must be demonstrated that logic is not science (not asserted or eleuently talked at).Someone said, to say that something is valid is not to say that it is true. The opposite of this of course is to say that it very well MAY be true, (now do you see the difference between assertion and falsification). What I mean here is decrying its conclusion and scientific method is not equal to demonstrating it is false. Someone also said, if you choose the correct premises you of course can prove the existence of God. Not true either. The conclusion will be demonstrated to be false, if the premises are not valid. To demonstrate this very simple point, I will use an example that is very familiar to us all. Mr. Spock and captain Kirk on the deck of the Enterprise. They are trying to establish the status of someone outside the ship. Mr Spock says, "there are only 2 LOGICAL possibilites Captain, they are unable to respond, they are unwilling to respond". Now what did Mr spock do in this situation. He did not pick the PREMISES he wanted he choose the only LOGICAL PREMISES that are possible. Now he did this without the assistence of any physical evidence, no measuring , no testing, no prediction. His conclusions were true and valid and incontravertable. Had Mr Spock not saw the results of his argument, it would have been TRUE. The point here is that, there are and were not any other Valid possibilites that could have been included in that situation. If you can think of one let me know.Now, narrow it down. There are only three LOGICAL possibilites as to how all things are here. (If you can think of another please let me know). They created themselves, they always exsisted or something created them. The mere fact that you cannot hypothesis, contemplate or theorize another is indicative of the truth in those premises of this argument. There are also no other Premises to choose from. Now regardless of the conclusion you choose a designer is the possibility of one of these choices.Now lets narrow it down further, there are only two possibilites of how life on this planet occured, it evolved, it was created or it was designed to evolve, there are no others and these are not the premises I choose, they are the only ones. You establish this by the SCIENCE OF LOGIC, THROUGH THE DECUCTIVE REASOING PROCESS. It is scientific by definition.. you must show that it is not, not by decrying what you believe science is, but by DEFINITION. You must show that my conclusions that I have drawn are INVALID, NOT THAT YOU JUST DONT SEE THEM AS VALID.Further, someone said, "no scientific theory can be proven". Of course this depends on wheather you are going to use a dictionary. Some FACT, TRUTH OR EVIDENCE OR KNOWLEDGE once established does not need further testing at times. the truths they estabkish are an axiom. They are truthful and self-evidentThis constitues my first argument and I think I tried to get of the reponses tom the substance of them. Please no more personal definitons of SCIENCE. AGAIN SOMEONE, SAID, 'SCIENCE IS PART OPF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, BUT NOT SCIENCE ITSELF. I would encourage you to pick up a dictionary. You can deduce logically (Science) the existence of designer, not ONLY from OBVIOUS design but from sound premises.Thanks and here we go.D Bertot.

Not in the Oxford English Dictionary, I just looked it up.And not by people, such as myself, who have taught logic at university level, and who will affirm that it is a branch of mathematics, not a science.But what the heck does it matter? Call it science (which it isn't) call it maths (which it is) or call it a seventeenth-century enamelware teapot --- it's still the same damn thing.You may be a creationist, but that doesn't mean that you have to be wrong about everything. Logic is a branch of mathematics, but even if it wasn't, it would still be logic. Why are you arguing the toss about how we should classify it?

Premises can only be validated if they can be formed as the conclusions of another valid syllogism. But ultimately, all logical reasoning comes back to premises that are axiomatic - that is, assumed to be valid without being able to prove that they are.And you can always assume something is true; you can assume whatever you want. Thus, assuming that something is true is no guarantee that it actually is. The dictionary isn't especially probative; mine, for instance, doesn't use the word "science" to describe logic. How to reconcile our differing definitions? If, as is true, we are people who have actually studied logic, then we're actually in a better position to define the term than the people who write dictionaries. The mere fact that I can't think of any other possibility now doesn't mean that I never will. Indeed, there was a time when people could only conceive of one of those possibilities, so it's clear that we will almost certainly continue to imagine others. Asserting that something is "truthful" doesn't establish that it is true. Er, no. They're your premises; you need to establish their validity. Defending your own arguments is your responsibility. It's not incumbent on any of us to disprove them until you've actually offered some proof.

I didn't use the dictionary because a dictionary is necessarily limited. The use of "science" in the definition does not correspond the the primary meaning of "science" in modern usage, instead referring to a more general use.Your Star Trek example is not a use of logic. Spock picked the two premises he did on the basis of background knowledge, not on pure logic (which is the only way to do it). What logic DOES tell us is that for Spock to be reliably correct, he had better be right that those are the only two possibilities ! But according to you he had no way of knowing that ! I really think that you need to think more carefully about what you are saying, and the arguments you are using.

It is in Merriam-Webster, but the problem is that there are several very different meanings of the word science, in which case your point is a valid one.By the way, as someone with some mathematical training (and who teaches mathematics), I don't classify logic as a branch of mathematics; rather mathematics is the pure application of logic. But that's a quibble.At any rate, logic is definitely not a science in the same way that physics, biology, and astronomy are sciences; science is generally used on this board to mean the application of the scientific method as a means of acquiring knowledge about the real world, of which logic is just one part of it.

---

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

Since I don't agree with your premise, your argument is unsound.- Since I don't agree with your premis, your argument is unsound.

---

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

Nice response Paulk but as I predicted you offered no other possiblites for Spock to choose from because he chose the only logical possiblites, which validates my point. But keep trying its fun to watchD Bertot

They are willing and able to communicate, but we have not noticed the manner of their communication.For example, if we knew nothing of sign language, then we would not recognise the gestures of the dumb as communication.If someone was unfamiliar with traffic lights, how would he recognise that green meant "go" and red meant "stop".What this has to do with ID, I have no idea.And speaking as someone who has taught logic, I wish I could have written the dialogue for Mr Spock, because that science fiction show has poisoned the minds of generations as to what "logic" means.

quote:

---

Nice response Paulk but as I predicted you offered no other possiblites for Spock to choose from because he chose the only logical possiblites, which validates my point. But keep trying its fun to watch

---

In fact I did not validate your point. As I pointed out Spock needs a source OTHER than logic to know that the two possibilities he mentions are the only ones. To mention an alternative that seems obviously valid he needs to know that the person in question is able to hear the message. One that seems less valid (but is not in any way logically invalid) is that the person involved might not konw know that they should respond. Logic doesn't in itself rule out possibilities that seem completely ridiculous and irrelevant to us such as the possibility that no response has been received because the sky is green. It seems absurd - but that is because we are applying a lot of background knowledge, not because of logic.