Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 312 (436160)
11-24-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chiroptera
11-24-2007 3:01 PM


Re: Logic is not a science
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.
I should say that both of those statements are true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 11-24-2007 3:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 17 of 312 (436161)
11-24-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dawn Bertot
11-24-2007 3:04 PM


Re: Logic is not a science
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".
If memory serves, that's from Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
In any event, there is certainly at least one other possibility. The entity outside the ship was responding, but in a manner that the people aboard the Enterprise were unable to perceive.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-24-2007 3:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 312 (436164)
11-24-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
11-24-2007 2:38 PM


Re: Logic is not a science
AGAIN SOMEONE, SAID, 'SCIENCE IS PART OPF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, BUT NOT SCIENCE ITSELF.
Really? Who said that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-24-2007 2:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 312 (436166)
11-24-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
11-24-2007 2:38 PM


Re: Logic is not a science
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.
Here is a tiger.
Did it create itself? No.
Did it always exist? No.
Did something create it? Only if you include, as a form of "creation", two tigers reproducing with variation, as in the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-24-2007 2:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 312 (436170)
11-24-2007 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
11-24-2007 2:38 PM


Re: Logic is not a science
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-evident
Like evolution?
Oh, wait, that's not what you mean. You mean that your opinions are axiomatic, truthful, and self-evident.
Then it's kinda funny how scientists don't share them, isn't it? You'd think that things that were "self-evident" would be, y'know ... self-evident.
You can deduce logically (Science) the existence of designer, not ONLY from OBVIOUS design but from sound premises.
You can?
Well, good luck. Go for it. You'll be the first person in the history of the world to do so, and may I say how honored I am to meet you ... unless, for some reason, you are not the greatest scientific genius who has ever lived, and you turn out to be completely wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-24-2007 2:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 312 (436181)
11-24-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
11-23-2007 11:36 PM


Basically a repeat of what has been said before.
Hello, DB. Welcome to EvC.
The inclusion of Logic as a science...
We have to be careful about what we mean by the word science. One meaning is that science is a body systematized knowledge; with this meaning, logic is certainly a science.
However, on this board, most of us are using the word science to mean the systematic acquisition of knowledge through the testing of hypotheses and theories through empirical investigation. In this case, logic is definitely not a science -- logic concerns itself with the examination of an argument to determine whether or not the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, and not directly with the acquisition of any knowledge.
-
...would greatly enhance the understanding of ID as a science, if it is understood in its prpoer context and usage.
And this is the problem; the proponents of ID are trying to pass it off as a science in the second meaning I gave in the previous paragraph, that is, that the hypotheses of ID are amenable to testing and refinement by the scientific method. In this case, logic isn't going to help much; in order to qualify as a science in the meaning used to denote the content of science courses in schools, then the hypotheses of ID need to be tested. That is, new hitherto unobserved phenomena need to be predicted, and those phenomena then need to be observed.
Now logic, as has already been pointed out, does have a place here. Namely, the predictions are basically conclusions deduced from the hypothesis, which serves as a premise to the logical argument. But logic itself cannot be used to determine whether or not ID is a reasonable hypothesis -- that can only be made through empirical investigation by the scientific method.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-23-2007 11:36 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 312 (436192)
11-24-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
11-24-2007 2:38 PM


More repetition.
Logic is the SCIENCE OF VALID REASONING.
This is true (with the first meaning of the word science given in my last post). But the "science of valid reasoning" is solely concerned with determining whether or not a conclusion is a necessary consequence of the premises. It is not concerned with whether or not the premises are valid; as I tell the class when I teach logic, whether or not the premises are valid is the subject of their other courses: chemistry, biology, history, and so forth. In logic, the premise are always assumed to be true; one then tests to see whether or not the conclusions are a necessary consequence of the premises. Logic gives us tools (truth tables, for example, or the rules of inference) that allows us to determine this.
This is where logic is used in science. For example, in biology, logic allows us to determine that from the premises of common descent and natural selection acting on small randomly occurring inheritable variations, a necessary consequence is that the species should exhibit a nonsubjective nested hierarchical pattern. Then, once the conclusion has been determined (called a prediction), it will be tested against observation. If a nonsubjective nested hierarchical pattern to the species cannot be observed, then the conclusion has empirically been determined to be false; since the conclusion has been derived as a necessary consequence of the premises, then one or more of the premises must be false. But ultimately, we are relying on empirical evidence to acquire knowledge (in this case, the truth or falseness of the theory of evolution).
-
Someone also said, if you choose the correct premises you of course can prove the existence of God.
Well, you can, according to the meaning of proof used in the "science" of logic. To prove something simply means to show that the conclusion follows as a necessary consequence from the premises. Here is a proof of the existence of God:
If all ravens are black, then God exists.
All ravens are black.
Therefore, God exists.
This proof is logically valid; it is a form called Modus Ponens, which is known to be a logically valid form. This, in turn, can be demonstrated quite simply to be valid by means of a truth table.
But have I "proven" anything in the everyday colloquial meaning of "prove"? No, of course not. The argument is not sound. We have no real reason to believe that all ravens are indeed black; in fact, since not every raven that has ever existed or ever will exist has been observed, there's no way of knowing that all ravens are black (although, if one non-black raven is ever seen, then that will show that this premise is false). Also, one may feel that the first premise, "If all ravens are black, then God exists," is not true since the existence of God and the blackness of ravens are not necessarily related.
But this is the problem with real life. All logical arguments rely on the acceptance of the premises as true; but in the end we may never know whether or not any given premise is true. The best that we can do is try to use empirical observation to give some insight as to the truth of a premise.
-
And this is part of your problem, I think. You are using words like science and prove, which have several different meanings, and it's not clear which meanings are intended, or whether the intended meanings are appropriate for the context in which the words are being used. In fact, I suspect that you yourself are using the words with the various different meanings at the same time, a fallacy called equivocation; certainly, your audience is interpreting these words with different meanings from what you might be intending.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-24-2007 2:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 23 of 312 (436303)
11-25-2007 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
11-24-2007 2:52 PM


Re: Logic is not a science
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2007 2:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 24 of 312 (436314)
11-25-2007 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chiroptera
11-24-2007 3:01 PM


Re: Logic is not a science
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 11-24-2007 3:01 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2007 7:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 28 by CK, posted 11-25-2007 8:39 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 11-25-2007 9:07 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 312 (436338)
11-25-2007 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dawn Bertot
11-25-2007 1:53 AM


Re: Logic is not a science
I still don't understand why you are so determined to be wrong.
You are trying to talk up logic by claiming that it's a science, you want it to be put side by side with, for example, the theory of gravity. You are wrong.
The people arguing with you say that it is mathematics, we're saying that logic is like saying that 2 + 2 = 4. We're right.
Don't you see that we're giving an even higher value to logic than you are? That we're arguing with you because you're underestimating logic? That we say that logic is more certain than you and your stupid crappy inaccurate dictionary?
Creationism doesn't mean that you have to be wrong about everything. Logic is mathematics, not science. If you don't like that, feel free to sue reality for causing you mental trauma.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-25-2007 1:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Michael, posted 11-25-2007 8:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 26 of 312 (436341)
11-25-2007 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
11-25-2007 7:51 AM


Re: Logic is not a science
Dr Adequate writes:
Creationism doesn't mean that you have to be wrong about everything.
I think I will use that as a signature line for this forum--if you don't mind.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2007 7:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2007 8:25 AM Michael has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 312 (436344)
11-25-2007 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Michael
11-25-2007 8:10 AM


Re: Logic is not a science
I think I will use that as a signature line for this forum--if you don't mind.
Yes, go right ahead.
---
This is something that creationists don't and can't understand. For example, consider all the endless creationist crap about how (non-avian) dinosaurs are still roaming the earth.
Clearly, this wouldn't prove them right in any way. But because it's obviously false, and because scientists say that it's wrong, they feel obliged to pretend that it's right. And I try to explain to them that just because some statement about biology is stupid and ridiculous and wrong, that doesn't make it an argument for creationism.
And they never understand.
In the same way, Dawn wishes to pretend that logic is a science. She's wrong, and she doesn't realise how being wrong doesn't help her out. She thinks that because all the experts say that she's wrong, therefore she must be arguing for creationism.
WHich is an interesting commentary on creationism, when you think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Michael, posted 11-25-2007 8:10 AM Michael has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-25-2007 2:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 28 of 312 (436346)
11-25-2007 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dawn Bertot
11-25-2007 1:53 AM


Re: Logic is not a science
do you mean facts in the everyday usage of the word or how the term is used in science (where it means something different)?
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-25-2007 1:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 312 (436349)
11-25-2007 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dawn Bertot
11-25-2007 1:53 AM


Re: Logic is not a science
You're reply seems to be just saying, "nuh-uh!" I'll await until you have more time to compose a more substantive reply.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-25-2007 1:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 30 of 312 (436393)
11-25-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
11-25-2007 8:25 AM


Re: Logic is not a science
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 well
The 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2007 8:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2007 3:13 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 11-25-2007 4:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2007 6:30 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-26-2007 1:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024