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

You are equivocating again.First the "formal sciences" BY DEFINITION (as you agreed to in Message 63) do NOT involve the scientific method as they "use other methodology" and "Testing measurement, experimentation and prediction," are part of the scientific method and NOT part of logic.Formal science - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A formal science is an academic study that is predominantly concerned with abstract formal systems, for instance, logic, mathematics, and the theoretical branches of computer science, information theory, and statistics.

---

Logic as a science on it's own, by this definition, necessarily includes abstract reasoning without relation to the real world, no testing, no experimentation. No scientific method, in part because it is not needed to prove the validity of abstract constructions (just as it is not needed in math to prove mathematical concepts). Our breakdown is due to your absolute failure to demonstrate this is assertion can be true. Here's your opportunity again: Take a stab at it. Without Spock and Star Trek straw man examples. Curiously, saying you have done something is different from actually doing it. We can do a search for the term ID in this thread and see how many times it occurs in your posts and then what you are saying about it. Care to place any bets on it having content (logical or otherwise)?Is this how you establish fact? By making it up? I've not seen it done.In a nutshell, all conclusions rest on premises, and the conclusions are positively absolutely true if - and only if - the premises are true AND the logical structure is valid. No premise is a priori positively absolutely true, THEREFORE no conclusion is positively absolutely true. Does this prove for a fact that there are no "real facts" (that we know are positively absolutely true)? Nope, my premises could be false, and even if not, it just shows that logic cannot demonstrate this to be true.Note the abstract nature of the logical argument -- it does not depend on what premise or conclusion we are talking about, but whether the results can be positively absolutely true or only as true as the premises and the structure. This is logic. No experimentation, no testing, no theoretical falsification. And yet it is curiously devoid of logic.Enjoy.ps - again - 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.This helps make your posts more readable, and easier to comprehend. It's logical to use these aids in communication.

---

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.

It could also be a clue that there is something wrong with your position.Of course you could sort it out by making a logical argument instead of repeating a series of assertions without substantiation.There is another alternative: select one or two other people you want to continue the debate with and ask admin to move this to the great debate forum with only you and those people involved. And of course you have not been rude nor inconsiderate, you have actually responded to people by answering their questions, and not just repeating yourself and asking them to get a clue?RIIIIGHT.Poor victim.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ,

---

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.

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.

With the compromise (Message 58) you agreed to in Message 63 we include logic as a formal science (like math) and exclude logic as a natural science, we can now (supposedly) move on to seeing how this "would greatly enhance the understanding of ID as a science" ... and see what kind of science you mean here (formal or natural). The possibility is always possible. That doesn't make it a (natural science) scientific hypothesis however - it's not testable. Nor does this make the concept of ID (natural science) scientific. Note that astrology is also possible, a flat earth is possible, it's just a matter of ignoring some inconvenient truths, which is always a possibility in any logical argument. A logical proposition can only be true or false based on its premises and the logical structure, and the existence or not of different arguments has no bearing on the validity and truth of the logical argument. It cannot be "enhanced" by other arguments.Now here we either have

• two conflicting usages of science (ie equivocation), the formal science of logic and the natural science (supposedly) of the "other arguments" - the ones that deal with the natural world, and not with the abstract world of logic, or
• several arguments based on the formal science of logic, which are abstract and thus speculative in nature (being unrelated to the natural world).

So far no argument, based on logic being a (formal) science, has been put forward that "would greatly enhance the understanding of ID as a science" eh?But that is not the only problem. Notice that logic as a formal science, ...Logic - Wikipedia

quote:

---

As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The field of logic ranges from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory. [1]

---

... "investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments," and it doesn't actually make logical arguments about things. It studies how such arguments can be valid or not.If you are going to use logic (no matter how good or bad that use is), then you are no longer within the realm of logic as (formal) science.Thus your (often repeated) example of Spock from Star Trek is not an example of the science of (formal) logic, but the application of just plain logic - hopefully in a valid and insightful ("enhanced") manner, based on the study of logic methodology.Science (natural science) freely uses\applies both math and logic to ensure it is making as valid conclusions from the evidence, tests, etc as possible, but that is only part of the picture of applying scientific principals to determine what we can understand about reality.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : changed ending

---

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.

Actually I get that you are having to deal with a lot of hits, and that will take time and can be quite overwhelming.I was just poking a little fun, since you claimed an answer to my question would be the EASIEST. If so, it would have seemed to make more sense to dispense with me first. Tha's all.Take your time.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

DB,Please take the time to read the Forum Guidelines and to understand the use of the formatting tools.Please refrain from typing in all caps since that equates to yelling in this type of communication.Since your time is limited, I suggest you refrain from the commentary and address the issue directly. Think quality, not quantity.If you have already covered an issue it is customary to link back to the post that holds your response so you don't have to type it again.I am closing this thread to give you time to familiarize yourself with the tools of the board and to construct responses that will move the discussion forward. It will be reopened tomorrow, unless another admin wishes to open it sooner.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you Edited by AdminPD, : Typo

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

Thread reopened, please keep moving forward.Thanks
AdminPD

Thanks a bunch AdminPD. Iam sorry for the confusion I am simply not accustomed to the this type of debating. We normally do this in person or in the public polemic type format,. ie the WARREN-FLEW debate for example. But thanks again for your patience. DB

SilentH. Thanks in advance for you apology and consideration and I was completly serious when I said that I thought your response in message 34 was simple, as a response. I simply saw other wieghter matters, that I thought needed more attention.Here is the answer to your question. Simply to point out the fact that at sometime in the past some group of people used Rationalism to the exclusion of Empericism, is not to say that one (Rationalism) has no place or purpose in the present. The truth of the matters is that both are so intertwined that at times they are indistinguishable. Nearly every definition of Empericism involes the words, intellectual or rational. Trying to find the purpose and connection between the two has been my task in this thread and the proposition I am seting forth. Trying to explain the rational process and in purposes are also my intentions.Your other question had to do with, "what exacally is Logic the science of". Of course that has been rehearsed so many times I wont try it again here, because I dont want ot get thrown back in that 'Dag-blasted', penalty box. However, as I proceed to answer some of the other post I belive you will see that deveolpe. D Bertot

Instead of answering other posts, why don't you just develop the idea from your OP:

quote:

---

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.

---

Ignore the other posts for now. Just explain how the incluson of logic as a science would greatly enhance the understanding of ID as a science.

---

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

To Chiroptera. I will be happy to do this immediatley but it will take some verbage if you will agree to this and not cry Tautology or eqivocation. I will explain it then put it in syllogism form, fair enough. DB

The proposition set out and explained.Premise 1. Logic as a science to develope or enchance the idea of Creation or ID is demostratable from the fact, that one can establish Facts, ACTUAL facts, that are usable, knowable "understanding gained by experience"., (by any common definiton) and even testable from the application and correspondece to pysical things. One cannot simply dismiss the reality or value of a fact, because it is not established by the method of testing know as 'Natural science'. It can and has been demonstrated that truths in fact, also known as Axioms (self-evident truths) can be demonstrated as knowable and incontravertable by the premises they establish. It is agreed that even if you list Logic as only a Formal science, it still has the ability to establish actual facts in truth, the conclusions again, of which are incontravertable, AxiomAgain, bear with me please. Again there has been no possible alternatives offered for example in the Spock argument. The last attempt, was to say, "They are willing and able but have not decided to yet". Again, this only restates his proposition in another form and even if they had not decided yet to respond, it would still fall under the category of UNWIILING. Spock set forth an argument the conclusion of which was Factual that corresponded to the physical world but was not an actual test by the process of physical things. Whats the point.You can have actual Facts that are real that do not need the actual testing measures set forth in the 'Natural science' definition. An Axiom. Simply stating that these are not actual Facts because they are based on Math or whatever, does not invalidate them as Facts. Its only that your definition of Fact will not allow this possibility. Further, the most important fact that establishes his argument and conclusion as Valid and Truthful in reality was that it was INCONTRAVERTABLE. It must be demonstrated to be incomplete and not axiomatic by refutation. Enough said on that illustration I hope.Im getting to the application, but these are points that need to be established prior to that conclusion. Definitions and conclusions about what certain words are an actually mean are at the heart of the issue. You certainly can have almost no agreement if this is not accomplished.The dictionary defines the word Fact as, "something that exists or is real". In other words it has the property as something that is knowable and identifiable, regardless of the type of test you apply to it. Even if you view Logic as mathmatics or by some other definition it has the capacity to develope a conclusion that correspondes to the physical world, when its conclusions are verifiable, knowable and sometimes incontravertable, even without the application of an actual physical test. In other words you can ascertain or grasp, that, "something that exists or is real" (Fact),by simply the application of the Science of Logic.Premise 2. Now the point, with the above first premise in place it follows that the question of the existence of things would not only be a 'natural science' question to answer, but one of the Rational thought procees (Logic) in conjunction with a correspondence to the physical world. There are only 3 logical possibilites to explanation of things that exist. 1. They always existed. 2.They came into existence out of nothing (they created themselves). 3. something or someones existence that, is eternal itself, created and brought them into being. The mere fact that you cannot contemplate. theorize or imagine anther possibility or alternative outside of these demonstrates it as an actual facta, atleast that proposition in and of itself. You may be able to play with and shift around by definiton the three possibilites, but not to the point that you can offer an explanation that does not fall within the three. Now given premise no.1, if further follows that, this establishes itself as truthful and demonstratable, through the observation and correspondence to physical properties,(an Axiom), regardless of the option you choose. This proposition (the three possibilites themselves)in and of itself constitues an valid argument, simply by its own propositions it sets forth. In other words the conclusion drawn from this premise is verifiable, observable because it correspondes to physical things, that establish an actual fact.Further, a creator or designer is definitely one alternative in the posibilites of this Axiom, which given the validity in premise no.1 of the FACT gathering process, would form and constitute a verifiable, measurable and testable (scientific process), through deductive reasoing, sound premises and conclusions to establish ID as a definate, scientific alternative that can be established in this manner, independent of Religious, thoughts, ideas or concepts.Conclusion. Due to the very obvious fact that a person can by the process of, the logic of Science, the decutive reasoning process, clearly and knowingly establish actual FACTS or axioms that are real, testable, knowable and verifiable, by means stated above, one can easily establish the fact that a Creator or designer falls well within the parameters of what constitues a scientific method for establishing it as a scientific process or method. Again, it must be demonstrated that a fact can only be established by a 'natual science' definition, for this propositon to be invalid. Otherwise the fact gathering process is valid, the axiom itself is valid, therefore the conclusion is true, valid and incontravertable. It is a scientific process pure and simple.Syllogism,
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.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.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. AxiomsNow I hope no one says I have not, now, demonstrated its application.
to ID.Thanks, D Bertot

Pardon my intrusion once more Here, there was one point I wanted to make in my propositon I failed to put into the text. As I looked through the very fine definitions you provided me of Natural science and Formal logic, I failed to see where either one of them said that a person is not warrented in drawing a valid conclusion from either process which would establish a real Fact. Nor did it explain exacally what constitues a fact. Now I think that is the real problem here, you fellas are assuming that you have this priveledge and are setting the criteria that should involve what it takes to constitute an actual fact, or how to come to the conclusion of truth in fact. Sorry I didnt put this in the text initially. D Bertot

Copying and pasting into quote boxes is a good idea, Dawn, as it means that you get what the person says right (and who said it).I, bluegenes said this:

quote:

---

As for Spock, he's going on information, as well as logic. He could have said:

​

"there are at least 3 LOGICAL possibilities Captain, they are unable to respond, they are unwilling to respond, or they are both able and willing to respond, but haven't yet decided what to say."

---

You say: I state clearly that they are willing. Willing doesn't mean "unwilling". Not in English. So, you can see that you're completely wrong. They are willing to reply (and able) but have not decided what to say. (They're going to say something). There are plenty of other alternatives on the information I've got, but Spock clearly has much more (or else he's really stupid).But never mind the faults in Spocks "logic". The point about the whole situation is that he is speaking with lots of information/evidence behind him. His method of proceeding is scientific, and he could have presented his two points as what he considered to be the most likely two hypotheses based on all the information he had.Logic, as I'm sure others have pointed out, can certainly be used as a tool in science when there is evidence/information to go on, as can maths. On their own, they are not sciences.They can be used in relation to evolutionary theory, and any other "origins" theory, but in all cases, they must relate to physical evidence.That's what I.D.ers try to do (quite correctly) but the problem is that they have no evidence, and their logic is terrible.

Fine, but where is the testable model of ID to apply the test to?