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

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.

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.

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.

OK. So you don't understand logic, you don't understand the scientific method and you're not even reading the responses.

quote:

---

ow I noticed that all of the illustrations about the Spock example, included the words ABLE and WILLING. Hmmmm, I wonder why that was.
The ones that did not tried to make an argument about the circumstances outside the ship or the circumstances surrounding Spock himself. As I pointed out before, those circumstances have nothing to do with his CONCLUSION BASED ON THE PREMISES WHICH HE SET OUT. The point is, that not a single example could be provided that did not FALL INTO MR SPOCKS LOGICAL PROPOSITION.

---

I gave two examples which did not include the words "able" or "willing" and did not fall into the two categories. And I wasn't the only one.Worse you are ignoring the point that you have to deal with HOW Spock arrived at that conclusion rather than asserting that there are no other possibilities (which has been proven false). And that Spock was not applying the scientific method in your example. Simply creating a supposedly exhaustive list of alternatives is hardly an important part of that.So instead of getting all emotional - as you clearly are - and dismissing and ignoring the rebuttals you are getting why don't you try to seriously discuss the subject ?

quote:

---

To paulk. I think you need to go back and check your messages, your examples certainly did include the word 'able'

---

I have now checked. The FIRST used the word "able" - but referred to the ability to HEAR the message being sent (so why is that significant to you ?), the other did not. [/quote] and as I tried to explain to you 20 times before the background information is irrelavent in the Spock example because it would not have a bearing on his his simple premises. [/quote]It doesn't matter how many times you try to "explain" it. You're wrong. Spock's assertion that there are only two possibilities must be based on background information so that he can rule out other possibilities. He must have an understanding of how one ie expected to react to messages, of the capabilities of the person he is attempting to communicate with and of possible reasons why the other might not respond. Without background knowledge he would just be guessing - hardly "logical", even by Stat Treks use (or abuse) of the word.

quote:

---

Again EVERY example that has been provided in this illustration from you fellas can and does fall into Spocks conclusion. Example, one person said, maybe it was you, "maybe they did not know they needed to respond". (Unwilling) duh. Another said, the people on the ship did not understand their communication process. (Unable) Duh.

---

So, according to you it is not possible that they would have been happy to respond if they had known that it was required ? And if they did not understand they must have lacked the capability to make a response ? What a bizarre world you live in.

quote:

---

I am thinking about what I am saying ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE

---

Yes am. I'm not the one that thinks that guesses made in ignorance are "logical" (although I think I see why such an idea might appeal to you). I am not the one who asserts that a failure to understand a message constitutes an unwillingness to speak.

quote:

---

Here is an exercise for you, go back and repeat the words that Spock spoke, say them over several times in your brain and then think clearly about what I am saying. MAYBE THIS WILL HELP YOU.

---

I don't need help. I know what I am talking about. You don't. Maybe if you found a basic book on logic (there's one in the "Very Short Introductions" range which isn't bad, written by Graham Priest) you'd get somewhere.

quote:

---

Again, he did use the a scienific method if you are willing to accept logic as a science.

---

There are two things wrong with this. Firstly you insist that he DIDN'T use logic - he simply stated that there were only two options. According to you he didn't know what he was talking about. According to you he used no process of reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that there were only two possibilities. According to you he didn't even have a basis to arrive at that conclusion. So he can't have used logic.Secondly logic is NOT the scientific method. Centuries ago there were two major competing schools of philosophy. One, Rationalism, asserted the primacy of reasoning and considered observation relatively unimportant. The other, Empiricism, considered observation to be more important than reasoning. Modern science is based on Empiricism. In science logic is just a tool, to be applied to data gathered by observation. And then making more observations to confirm that the conclusion was correct.

Why don't we just agree that ID is about as scientific as a Star Trek movie ?

Since you won't bother to sum up your argument (being too busy accusing others of "playing word games" for seeing through YOUR word games) I'll do it:Logic is a scienceIt is possible to narrow down the possibiltiies for the origin of life to two or three of which ID is one.This is logic because it sort of looks like something Spock did in a Star Trek movieTherefore ID is science(I repeat that this is Dawn's argument, I take no blame for it!)Note that the definition of science used is not the same as that used in "Science classes" , and even if this argument was valid it wouldn't give the least justification for putting ID into science classes at all. The only reason for using the word "science" is because Dawn is playing a word-game. But you mustn't notice that because if you do Dawn will accuse YOU of playing a word-game. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

To PaulK. This is not Logic or science because it iis on a Television show, it is science an or Logic because it is derived from a Logical proposition the conclusion of which is,(now watch this) VALID, TRUTHFUL, and INCONTRAVERTABLE. Thats whole ISSUE at hand. And this statement is a summation of my arguments. Now listen. IS IT POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH TRUTH, FACTS OR KNOWLEGDE, WHICH are REAL, NOT SUPPOSEDLY REAL BECAUSE IT WASNT PUT IN A TEST TUBE? OR LETS ASK THE QUESTION THIS WAY, IS IT POSSIBLE TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING AND BE CORRECT ABOUT IT, WITHOUT PUTTING IT TO THE TEST TUBE METHOD OF SCIENCE? When PaulK answers the abouve question you will see what I am talking about.

---

Well I can see some very serious problems with what you are saying.Firstly science isn't about test tubes. Or even laboratories. Those are just tools. What science is really about is observation. A lot of science goes on outside the laboratory. Astronomers spend a lot of time with telescopes and other instruments. Geology and various branches of biology use field observations. Because that's where the data IS - out in the field.Logic, on the other hand has one major limitation. It can't provide any genuinely new information. All it can do is bring out information that is already in the premises, considered as an aggregate - every valid logical deduction is tautologous.To get facts about the real world you need to start with facts about the real world. Logic can't provide those.

quote:

---

Now if anyone is listening out there you watch his response carefully. I predict he will say that the FACTS YOU ESTABLISH outside of HIS DEFINITION OF SCIENCE are not really FACTS at all

---

If you'd been paying attention you'd know that that prediction would turn out to be false. You can prove logical theorems with just logic - and they're facts. But they don't tell us anything useful about the real world.

quote:

---

Again you can be a as sarcastic as you want but you will not avoid or refute the point that facts and real facts can be established from this process. the conclusion of which is, you CAN establish OR EVEN THE POSSIBILTY OF the existence of a DESIGNER using a scientific process that does not involve you methodology only. And yes it it a clear and valid reason to teach ID in the classroom, because it has nothing to do with religion and sets forth its PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS FROM A SCIENTIFIC METHOD CALLED LOGIC. Now is this CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

---

It's quite clear. Firstly you are using your word-game, equivocating on science. Secondly you haven't produced this supposed logic. Thirdly, mere possibility does not entitle anything to be taught in the classroom.

quote:

---

I noticed also, Paulk, you did not tell me wheather the FACT Spock established was a real FACT or just a fake FACK, because it was not established using you method of SCIENCE.

---

It wasn't a real fact because it isn't true. As has already been proven.

quote:

---

Here is another question for you. What did Jesus mean when he said, "You will KNOW the TRUTH and the TRUTH WILL set you FREE". Oh my goodness, I quoted Jesus, is this a ACLU apporved website.

---

Perhaps he meant that the enemies of truth are also the enemies of freedom. You are certainly opposed to both.

Well the first part of the post is a confused mess, made worse by the refusal to admit the fact that the "Spock" example has been conclusively refuted.So let's deal with the alleged syllogism

quote:

---

1. Facts about the real world and the origins of things can and are gathered by other means than a physical testing method. They are gathered by the science of Logic, that can and does establish actual facts, by the process of deductive reasoning to establish facts which are axiomatic in conclusion, that need no further testing or observation. This constitues a method of science.

---

False. Axioms are NOT conclusions of logic. They are statements taken as"self-evident" (or in formal systems the axioms are the basic "truths" and are part of the definition of the system) , that they may be used as premises.As I have stated before, logic does not gather facts other than logical theorems. When dealing with the physical world (or indeed anything that exists as a concrete) logic can only reveal facts inherent in the premises (taken as an aggregate).As a corollary any fact derived from logical deduction is no more certain than the premises used to derive it. It is therefore rarely the case that a logical deduction about the real world may be taken as absolutely certain.

quote:

---

2. An AXIOM (science of deductive reasoning) can be and is established by demonstrating the only three possible means of the existence of things. A designer or creator by definitions explained in premise one, clearly falls into the parameters of this conclusion. Establishing him or it as a definate explantion from a scientific method of gathering actual facts and information.

---

This is just a confused mess. Why not simply state that given a (genuinely) exhaustive list of possibilities one of them must be true ?

quote:

---

3. Conslusion, the propositon of ID and or Creationism, are independent of the idea or Religion and rest or base the establishment of its theory on principles that are used in the science of Logic, by which actual facts can and are established, about the origins of things., ie existence of things, which would include the natual world. Again due to the fact, that FACTS can and are gathered by more than just a stricly physical process. Axioms

---

This conclusion does not follow from the premises. They do not deal with anything that establishes ID as a reasonable possibility or as something supported by science. Because you forgot to include your "application" of logic in your alleged "syllogism".The statement that either pigs fly or they do not fly, while undoubtedly a fact does not establish that the idea that pigs fly is scientific in any sense of the word. And equally in the general case even if one establishes an exhaustive list of possibilities, it does not establish that any of those possibilities is scientific or even that logic supports it in any way. Thus even your supposed "application" of logic does not support the conclusion you wish to reach.I can only repeat my suggestion that you learn the basics of logic. That would also help you learn how to construct a rational argument - an area where you desperately need help.

quote:

---

Provide the specific post that does this again. And I will be happy to respons to it. I maintain that no matter the verbage you throw at it it is incontravertable

---

A number of posts provided examples. I provided two myself in Message 15 I refuted your attempted rebuttal in Message 39

quote:

---

This is exacally what I said, that an axiom supports and corroborates the process decutive reasoning process when the conclusions are valid..

---

That may be what YOU said. But it certainly isn't what I said

quote:

---

That was the point of the Spock illustration, its valid (aximatic) irregardless of the properties involved.

---

Axiomatic is not the same as valid. Spock's claim is certainly not axiomatic in any system of logic I know of (perhaps you could tell us which axiom it is in which system if you believe otherwise). And without the reasoning process we cannot judge the validity either.

quote:

---

Further, the axiom in and of itself, is enough to validate a rational, verafiable conclusion.

---

Please stop making nonsensical statements. You have not presented an axiom, nor would it - in itself "validate a rational, verafiable[sic] conclusion."

quote:

---

Wheather you want to believe it or not. You can just say oh thats not a real fact, because you dont like it, or because its a part of an logical process or even an axion.

---

I don't say any such thing. What I AM saying is that you haven't presented the supposed logic used by Spock, you haven't dealt with the counter-examples which show Spock to be wrong (or at least indicate that there is important information that you have left out - a big no-no in logic !) and instead you gives us bizarre assertions about axioms which only show that you don't even know what an axiom is!

quote:

---

This last statement is nothing more than mere assertion. Its the very point that is in contention.

---

It is more than an assertion since the support is in the immediately preceding question. Any uncertainty in the premises carries over to the conclusion - and absolue certainty is a rare thing.

quote:

---

It certainly does follow that these FACTS are true if the premises are valid.

---

In logic, validity is not a property of premises. The question is whether the premises are TRUE. If there is any uncertainty it carries over to the conclusion.

quote:

---

This is what I meant in post 118, that it not yours and yours alone to decide, what constitues the method of establishibg a fact. Or deciding, that "logic does not gather facts other than logical theorems", this is nothing but assertion, even if it were true, the facts you speak of in this process are and can be real and testable, by there coorespondance to the real world.

---

You may call it assertion but it is a fact. Without premises from outside the system, any system of logic is limited to proving its own theorems. How could it be otherwise ?

quote:

---

Notice the terminology you use, "it is therefore rarley the case that a logical deduction about the real world may be taken as absolitley certain". Your verbage implies that this nothing more than a assertion. Because the opposite of what you said would of course be true.

---

On the contrary, "therefore" implies that it follows from a previous statement and is therefore NOT mere assertion. Moreover it is not the case that mere assertions are automatically false so the last sentence in the above quote makes no sense even in context.

quote:

---

They most certainly do follow the conclusion if you will apply a method of testing that does not include just include your own.

---

I assumed that you were attempting to apply logic (failing miserably, but still attempting it. What method of testing other than logical validity should I apply ?

quote:

---

Why not try answering the body and substance of the argument instead just picking at it

---

I have pointed out that the first premise is obviously false. The second premise does not even make sense. That the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Your argument consisted of two premises and a conclusion - so I dealt with ALL of itI even went further and dealt with a vital part that you happened to leave out of your formal presentation of your argument.Now I suggest that you give up ranting and trying to bully people who actually know what they are talking about and learn something. Actually study logic a little instead of writing complete nonsense about it. Listen to people who disagree with you instead of looking for excuses to declare yourself right.

FromMessage 7(emphasis mine)From Message 188

quote:

---

Listen up, the term UNABLE applies to the situation, not to either side exclusivley.

---

"They are unable to respond" - "they" refers to one side exclusively

quote:

---

Again it does not matter what their SPECIFIC (ones outside the ship)PROBLEM was or even if the enterprise could not understand them. They were UNABLE for whatever reason, it doesnt matter, to get in contact with the ship

---

"They are unable to respond" - the problem is specifically an inability to respond.Indeed, this is becoming very silly.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

The primary question about ID's status as science is whether it is a natural science. This is what is virutally always meant about the claim that ID is scientific.1) Logic is NOT a natural science, nor is the use of logic restricted to natural science. Thus even if ID made extensive use of logic it would not resolve the question.2) The proposed use of logic is trivial, to the point where it could not qualify ID as a science even in the sense that logic is considered a "science"

The axioms of science would probably be things like the idea that there is an external, objective reality (although even that is not absolutely necessary), that our senses give us largely reliable information about it and that the nature of reality won''t suddenly change for no apparent reason.It may seem obvious that "dead men tell no tales" is true - but it isn't so evident that spiritualists and numerous religious believers will try to tell us that there is an afterlife and a possibility of communicating with the dead.