Message 78 of 106 (460536)
03-16-2008 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Straggler
03-15-2008 7:39 PM
Re: Refutation II - Logical Coherence RIP
In Message 59 I demonstrated that in the absence of omniscience any method of investigation that relies simply on the application of logic to existing incomplete empirical evidence will produce inherently unreliable conclusions.
For the love of reason Straggler, we all rely solely upon the application of logic for the scientific method. Furthermore, when it comes to origins (be it biological or cosmological), all of us are working with incomplete evidence.
So what you have just said in essence, is that any science will produce unreliable conclusions when it comes to historical sciences. Certainly your not suggesting that a little illogical interpretation of the incomplete evidence is valid. No, you not so foolish… we rely simply on logic to make what evidence is present, coherent and intelligible.
You may be confusing observational science (where we have all the evidence) with the historical sciences (which we do not).
We’re dealing with theory here Straggler. And we’re specifically trying to find out which theory (in terms of origin) is the most logical (coherent) with the available evidence.
That is the context of my thesis as clearly stated in the abstract. So let me state it in another way; we’re not dealing with empirical facts, other than basing our theories on those incomplete empirical facts already known.
|A hypothesis based approach, where comparison with the empirical truths of nature was the ultimate test of a theory, was advocated as the alternative that would provide the best method of obtaining the most reliable conclusions possible.|
Empirical truths? Truth is not empirical Straggler, it is coherent. Truth is essentially the quality of our propositions.
Truth 3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth )
Truth is a statement that conforms to what actually is empirically. Rocks do not speak. We must speak for them in the language that appears to accurately reflect the cosmos; the language of mathematics and logical inference.
I said it even more clearly in my argumentation; that if the empirical material world is coherent, then our theories (philosophies) regarding it must also be coherent in order to be in accord; in order to match, the logical and coherent pattern in nature.
logic 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic )
And the most formal of all principles of reasoning is the law of contradiction. That’s what logic is. And all other modes of premise, conclusion, and the like, must obey this law. Without it, we do not have mathematics to postulate laws of physics and the like which you glibly assert as empirical truth.
Reason, logic, and coherence are synonymous…
Logic is coherence Straggler. You said that (incomplete evidence) + (valid logic) + (coherence) = (unreliable conclusion).
All logic is valid by definition. Logic and coherence are the same thing. If our reasoning is not valid, then it is illogical and incoherent.
This is the proper way to state my thesis (Available evidence) + (logical i.e. scientific methodology) = (the most scientific conclusion). I am not suggesting that such a result is absolutely solid or empirical fact. We’re dealing in the realm of scientific theory not fact. We’re trying to derive the most logical and coherent conclusion from available evidence (‘empirical truths’ as you call them).
And how are empirical truths arrived at if not by the application of logic in the past? Evidence isn’t true apart from observation, testing, repeatability and the like. If it were, we would have no need for science, or the scientific method.
Upon testing the evidence with the law of contradiction (logic) we find such things as logical and mathematical patterns (laws of physics) that are coherent and indisputable in nature. We might say that nature reflects and confirms our reasoning (which is a curious thing in itself really)That’s what makes an empirical fact a fact.
And I agree that that is the best method, and it is all that I am advocating. The only thing I have done is established what science already is… And I find it amusing that you are arguing against the very thing you are trying to defend. :laugh: You’re completely tied in knots. As one poster told me privately, you’re manifesting demons. I don't know about that, but I can almost imagine you foaming at the mouth. We all got a few snakes inside...
You accuse me of zeal? If you want to see zeal, take a gander at Richard Dawkins. Zeal is not something reserved only for theists!
| In Message 72 I discussed how a methodology riddled with all the evident practical and theoretical problems faced by Rob’s theory might be arrived at if one were to make the mistake of assuming that science was merely a means of substantiating preconceived conclusions and positions rather than a quest for reliable theories and (as yet unknown) conclusions.|
First of all, my only theory is that logic is valid. That is my assumption, and it is also my conclusion. Logic is circular and systematic by its very nature, and that is why rationalism is not good enough. We must systematize logic with the objective empirical world. Then it is valid.
That is exactly the case I make in the argumentation. But you have had it backwards from the beginning. It isn’t design that I assume before I begin, it is materialism that you conclude before you begin.
Again, the only thing I assume from beginning to end is logical coherence.
What I said (and what all of you confess) is that methodological naturalism assumes a preconceived conclusion (that all scientific explanations must be material) before the process even begins.
So as Percy is waiting for, let's put my process to an example. And let's test my theory of ID against yours.
It works like this with regard to origins: Material explanations and causes for many problems exist. Therefore all explanations and causes for all problems are material.
That is called inductive reasoning. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
It may be valid, but it must be weighed and made to cohere with empirical evidence, which cannot be done apart from omnipotence. So it is neither internally coherent or objective (as deductive reasoning would be), and is not empirically testable or repeatable by observation or experiment.
Now here is the rub:
There is no material explanation for the origin of DNA or matter.[/b] It is simply asserted that such an explanation must exist by ecclesiastical proclamation made by those with a materialistic philosophy. That is an anti-theistic philosophy that has no scientific merit by way of empirical evidence or logical authority.[/b]
How can I say that anything must exist without evidence? Isn’t that what you accuse theists of doing?
On the other hand, there is empirical evidence for intelligent causation, namely the organizational and creative capacity of intelligent human beings.
Matter cannot produce information. Matter obeys information. Matter is simply the material medium by which intelligence produce patterns that are written.
For example, SETI researchers who are supported by a large body of ‘scientists’, listen for such patterns, in order to prove the existence of intelligence elsewhere. So you guys support the principle if only it could be used to find life other than God.
The addition of information causes no difference in mass to the material medium. A CD that is full of 70MB of information is no different in terms of mass than one that is empty. The only difference is the pattern that intelligence inscribes in the medium. Without intelligence, there is no information.
There are lots of material emissions coming from space, but they contain no intelligent information as far as we can tell thus far. There is no demonstrable natural process by which information is produced. And that’s why SETI Researchers know that such a pattern would signify intelligence.
It isn’t the matter or energy in the emissions that contains the information, but the pattern of the medium that contains the signal.
Imagine two newspapers… both with equal numbers of letters and atomic weight. One has intelligible sentences, and the other has the same letters distributed randomly across the pages. It’s the logical order of the letters that contains intelligible information, not the material medium itself. It isn’t the ink and paper that is information, but the pattern put there intelligently.
When it comes to DNA were dealing with the most sophisticated and efficient organized and logical code in the known universe. Random and repetitive forces of nature cannot produce a Dick and Jane book, let alone quaternary digital codes.
At least not that we know of… But if you could find some evidence to the contrary, then you be scientific.
So when it comes to origins we have a choice between two theories. One provides no explanation for the origin of biological information. The other offers a logical and coherent conclusion sustained by actual empirical evidence.
Which one has the logical and scientific evidence on its side?
Which of the two based upon your own admission of what science is, is the most scientific?
Now Straggler, if you don’t think we should rely upon logic in light of insufficient evidence, then you must be advocating illogical interpretation of what evidence we do have, so as to believe in something that there is no evidence for whatsoever.
I never said that two valid theories can be equally true btw. You were tearing down a straw man. Obviously they cannot, because the law of contradiction prohibits it. There is simply no such thing as two valid theories, because there validity is determined by testing.
When looking at two theories, the one that is the most coherent must be exalted to remain scientific. That is the inference to the best explanation. It doesn’t mean that it is true absolutely… it only means that it has the most explanatory power in terms of science, which is the combination of logic and evidence.
Use your God given mind.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 75 by Straggler, posted 03-15-2008 7:39 PM|| ||Straggler has responded|