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.

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.

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

This is D Bertot again. I am so sorry, at the end of my letter today (24 Nov)I forgot to let all know, that I would be leaving for work, so I would not be able to respond to the new messages until much later. Sorry for not communicating this. I greatly appreciate your responses and I will get to them in turn, thanks for the invitation and particapation.D Bertot

Wow, as I look at the responses and particularly the definition in Webster, (thanks for providing that by the way), I see that the word Logic =, by this definition, involves almost all of the definitons that you use in THAT other definition of science. So what we should do here is rewrite, not only the definition for the word Logic but all the other words, that do not serve our purposes, because some of us have taught logic classes. "Call it what you want"., I didnt call it anything, the dictionary did. Calm down, swearing and shouting dont support your cause. Your simple challenge to us was to demonstrate even the possibility of the existence of a designer from a scientific method, this I did without any visible refutation that I can see. Actually the more you wrestle against the science of logic, demonstrates its validity. The simple question was, can you establish SOME FACTS, the conclusions of which are demonstratable and valid. A simple yes or no will suffice. Ill get to these others later.D Bertot

Sounds like I have excited a lot of emontions. I here you telling me that I am wrong and that as a creationist I have to be wrong about everything. That is very comical and when I saw it I laughed out loud as well. I might point out as well that as an Atheist or Evolutionis it is not required for you to ignore all the major points I have made, just a small illustration of this will suffice.Notice the comment, "stupid, crappy, inaccurate dictionary definition. Now does this sound very objective or scientific or even reasonabe. You guys use the definitions out of the dictionary to set the standards, issue challenges, but when we use the same source we are STUPID AND INNACURATE. And of course everybody else that wrote the dictionaries are, stupid, ignorant and crappy because they do not agree with your definition. NOW THERE IS SOME CURIOUS LOGIC FOR YA. Again isnt it interesting how the definition of Logic, nearly mirrors the definition ot that OTHER SCIENCE in almost exact detail. You say I want to put it along side the theory of gravity. Well, thats the point ,if its not as valid as that theory or a science in establishing atleast some facts, show me why. Quit crying about it. I wonder if there were any EXPERTS to assist in writing the dictionary? No, they were probably all idiots as wellThe two points I made at the outset of this discussion still have not been approached or touched in any valid manner. Those points simply were please provide me with and explantion of why we should not include, according to the dictionary or for any other reason for that matter, it, as a valid science. You still have not provided me with a valid reason why it is not a way to establish atleast Some FACTS, TRUTH, EVIDENCE, THE CONCLUSIONS OF WHICH ARE TESTABLE, DEMONSTRATABLE, IRRESISTABLE AND INCONTRAVERTABLE. As I read back through the comments I tried to be as objective as I could but saw no evidence to the contrary. The simple fact is, that you can use the science of logic to establish, TRUTH IN FACT. Truth that requires at times no further testing, observation or prediction. Again if i I missed something that certainly contradicts this, pleasr provide it to me. To say that Logic is math and not science, is completly silly. Science is a general discription of all of these areas. If you dont believe me pick up a dictionary. I dont FEEL OBLIGED TO PRETEND THAT IT IS RIGHT, You simply need to step up and show why it is not.To reinforce the above illustration, I asked a simple question, to demonstrate that is is possible to drawn valid conclusions, which require no further testing or observations, pointing out that there are only three ways and three ways only that things are here. They always existed, the created themselves, or somehting or someone created them. I of course did this for two reasons. To demonstrate the force and value of logic as science or a scientific method (by use of the stupid, crappy and ignorant dictionary) Further, to demonstrate that NOT ONE other example could be provided to the contrary or to refute this proposition. It stands as it was, unassulted and Valid.Now 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.Now I got some curious responses in connection with the three logical possiblites, the silliest of which was, GIVE ME ENOUGH TIME AND I WILL THINK OF ONE. Of course this proposition has been around since the Dawn of time and none have been offered. The next was a silly, exaggerated example of a sylliogism, that could of course be seen, to be inaccurate on the surface. OF COURSE YOU CAN PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF HOW LOGIC, THIS TYPE OF SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK AT TIMES. YOU TASK IS TO SHOW WHY IT DOES NOT WORK IN THE EXAMPLE I PROVIDED, EVEN IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION. THIS OF COURSE YOU HAVE NOT DONE AND CANNOT DO.Someone else said, "the mere fact that I can know, doesnt mean I ever will". Again this misses the point. And the point is, you can know, simply by using deductive reasoning. Its an axiomatic truth, Like Humes argument on design, which Ironically I agree with, simply because he does not refute the existence of God, only shows, that another alternative might me possible. BUT THIS IS THE POINT, HIS METHOD OF ARRIVING AT THIS TRUTH IS VALID.Again, the mere fact that you cannot contemplate, theorize or imagine another possibilit validates my proposition through the MECHANISM of logic, defined as science in that BAD , EVIL and inaccrate dictionary. Now this constitues, almost a complete response and rebutal of the so-called arguments I was presented. And until it can be demonstrated why EITHER of the propositions that I have set forth can be refuted with something other than rehtoric, they stand as therey are.Again, I have to leave for work and will wait with anticapation for your replies. In my next response I would like to set forth the reasons why I believe that the ToE cannot even live up to its own definitions of the word science.. As a beginning example I would like you to consider the MECHANISM. This is that thing they are always asking us to provide. Thanks for you attention.D Bertot

To paulk. I think you need to go back and check your messages, your examples certainly did include the word 'able' 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. 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. I am thinking about what I am saying ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE. 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. Again, he did use the a scienific method if you are willing to accept logic as a science.D Bertot

To silenth, you are correct you did arrive late and yours is actually the easiest to respond do of all. Ill save it for last.D Bertot

To Chiropetra, is no one listening to anything that is being said? My so-called emotional response as you call it, was only a response to the anger and swearing that has been exibited twords me in the responses thus far. I was the one making the joke about their level of anger starting to rise. Really, you should pay attention.Of course I realize there are different meanings to the word science. And with your admissions in this response, it looks like I am Making SOME REAL PROGRESS WITH YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE WORD LOGIC AS SCIENCE.. Thank you. Also you examples of where you may use the word science (cooking class), are certainly silly examples of the point I am trying to make.The real issue is that YOU would like to use the word science to mean, the acquistion of knowledge about the real world through emperical data, on this board. And if I buy into your exclusive and monopolized definition of the word, science, and only apply it to the aquisition of knowledge then you have accomplished your task.Appaerntly you came in late on the discussion as well. I am well aware that you need emperical data to support a conclusion from a logical proposition. If you were paying attention and I dont think you were, I also stated that there are some conclusions that are valid and true, the conclusion of which are valid, which NEED NO FURTHER EMPERICAL DATA, TESTING, MEASUREMENTS OR PREDICTIONS. THEY ARE AXIOMS. THEY ARE SELF EVIDENT TRUTHS. This would of course classify them as a type of empericism. The further emperical data would be the physical aspects of design itself. I think it would help if you went back and looked, I gave numerous examples of this in my responses. Again, if you are paying attention. My simple challenge from you in the outset was, provide a scientific way of demonstrating even the possibility of a designer. I have done this numerous times, )(especially demonstrating the axiom of the three ways and only three ways, all things are here) Regardless of the different ways in which science can be interpreted. And I think you know the way I am using the words science and logic here. I dont think they will cause the confusion you invisioned at all. If you will use one than one dictionary you will see that as I have pointed out the definition of Logic follows almost the same method with few exception. Try and be remotely fair here. I think that takes care of your response. Ill get to the others tommorrow. ThanksD Bertot

To Dr Adequate this one is simple to respond to. You need to go tell everybody else their idiots and you are the only one that understands everything. Then you need to write your own dictionary. I take it you dont like the definitions in the other ones because they do not suit your purposes. PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK.D Bertot

To CK, You are correct we are going around in circles, and in a moment I will definately show you why. As I began to type my responses last evening, I though OK, I will probably recieve a few responses in the morning. I certainly did not expect to recieve one 2 minutes later, that late in the evenig. GOOD HEAVENS , what do you people do, sit around the computer 24/7 and wait for responses. Unlike yourselves, I live in the real world and am not independantly wealth as some of you appear to be, that allowas you to do that. Having said that, I have much to do and am only able to make a quick response today. Now before anyone says Dawn (Im a guy by the way, my dad was an actual Rocket Scientist at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama and I was born on the same year and month of the first man space shot. He thought it would be fitting to name me this in honor of this event. Boy named Sue thing. So stop calling me Dear.), is afraid to respond, you will understand by my willingness to do this already and meet your arguments as well, that I am not.. Perhaps for today, you could go attack some other Ignorant, stupid and uninformed creationist and I will be more than happy to return to nightBefore we all get strung out like someone on crank about the Spock issue, I would like to point out that the only reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that you can establish FACTS independant of pysical properties and of course this he did using nothing but premises and valid conclusions. However, it must be pointed out his information was really use;ess to the captain. Kirk, would have been totally justified in turning and saying, "thanks Spock thats a real big help." But the BEAUTY and APPLICATION of his conclusion is the point. He established a TRUTH IN FACT WITHOUT THE USE OF A TEST TUBE OR anyother physical property. hat is the simple point I was making.Now that brings us to the point as to why we are having so much trouble here. I understand perfecly what Rationalism and Empericism are and even the definition issue, of what Science and Logic are is still not the issue here. Even though I have demonstrated numerous times now HOW Logic is a science, with many applications, even this is still not the problem. Here's the problem, you guys in the biological science community can take a simple word like FACT and give it a meaning that only applies to your standard and then imply or directly say that it has no application in any other setting of the process of establishing truth.. To demonstrate this, you use expessions like, "science isnt interested in truth"., as if truth and facts cannot be intertwined and the most certainly are, if you are willing to use an EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITON of the word Science and not you monopolized and exclusive one. If however, you are going to blindly assert that the only way to establish FACTS is by using some physical property as dirt or atoms, then we most certainly do have a problem here and we are going to continually go in circles. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, that on this website, you are demonstrating the very point I am making. You are establishing FACTS, now not all of the ones you bring up are valid, but some are. You are demonstrating FACTS by the use of a science called 'deductive and inductive reasoning'. This is a FACT that you are doing that, no pun intended. Wheather you want to believe it or not, FACTS can be FACTS and demonstratable as such, without the use of some physical property or a test tube. You fellas and gals have tried to create a world and definition of SCIENCE that does not allow this principle and you certainly are not warrented in doing this for all the reasons I have pointed out thus far and certainly many others as you will see as we proceed..Now is it clear to you WHAT THE PROBLEM IS?Like I said, I enjoy this and am certainly not afraid of anything that can be offered. Got to go for now, thanks again for you particapation.Mr. D Bertot

To Razd. Absolutley , YES. I have never said otherwise. The contention of most of the posts as you call them has been that Logic is not a science. This what I have been battaling. By NATURAL however, I think you mean biological, correct.D Bertot

To Silenth. As I explained to you in my response. I dont have the amounts of time you must have to set at a computer and provide responses. If I am the only one on this post trying to respond to 15 different people, each with 83 comments every time I make a comment, you see my difficulty. My difficluty is not in answering them, its trying to pick out the essentials. I suppose any moron can see this but continues to be difficult and rude. That of course should be our WATCHWORDS for you fellas, RUDE and inconsiderate.D Bertot

To Dr. Inadequate. It appears now that you guys are starting to contradict yourselves. RAZD's definition clearly says it is SCIENCE and he atleast agrees with that much and you appear not to. Maybe you should talk to him.Have you been here for most of this discussion, when you make a comment like, "Logic can tell us nothing of the real world unless you have some facts about the real world". I simply said that some FACTS derived from the SCIENCE OF LOGIC , dont need further testing, measurement and prediction, they are truths in fact, without a specific physical testing, like that of a test tube method. Further, your contention in the Spock situation you offered has been answered numerous times. Please pay attention.D Bertot

To Atheist. I will not answer this again and again, simply go back and read my responses. I have demonstrated this numerous timesD bertot