Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 10:16 AM
47 online now:
AZPaul3, Phat (AdminPhat), xongsmith (3 members, 44 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,579 Year: 3,616/19,786 Month: 611/1,087 Week: 201/212 Day: 16/27 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 301 of 312 (438380)
12-04-2007 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Dawn Bertot
12-04-2007 10:07 AM


Summarizing it.
For this reason it is simply a contemplation or hypothesis not a true AXIOM.

And this does, indeed, summarize the whole thread.

The Fifth is THE classic example of an axiom. The use of axioms in Euclid's geometry is the classic use of them. Heck it is probably why we use the word axiom (which sure looks Greek to me).

That you can make the above statement shows how far off in your own little world you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2007 10:07 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-04-2007 11:20 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 12-04-2007 11:27 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 304 by jar, posted 12-04-2007 11:36 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 309 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2007 12:31 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 302 of 312 (438384)
12-04-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by NosyNed
12-04-2007 11:09 AM


Re: Summarizing it.
Absolutely correct Nosey
It does come from a greek word.

The word "axiom" comes from the Greek word αξιωμα (axioma), which means that which is deemed worthy or fit or that which is considered self-evident. The word comes from αξιοειν (axioein), meaning to deem worthy, which in turn comes from αξιος (axios), meaning worthy. Among the ancient Greek philosophers an axiom was a claim which could be seen to be true without any need for proof

From Wikipedia

The same article also says this.

An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated and is considered as self-evident or as an initial necessary consensus for a theory building or acceptation. Therefore, it is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths.

This sums up both sides of the argument into one simple defining sentence.
Seems to me to say that it is agreed upon to be self evident, not that it actually is self evident.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by NosyNed, posted 12-04-2007 11:09 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2007 12:19 PM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 303 of 312 (438387)
12-04-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by NosyNed
12-04-2007 11:09 AM


Re: Summarizing it.
Crash has been using a Socratic approach trying to get Dawn to realize he doesn't know what an axiom is, but this thread is past the 300 post limit, so Nosy has appropriately just jumped ahead to the conclusion.

Euclid's 5th is, just as Nosy says, a classic example of an axiom. Known more famously as Euclid's 5th Postulate, in mathematics a postulate is a synonym for axiom. That Dawn thinks Euclid's 5th isn't an axiom does show, again just as Nosy says, how far into his own little world he is.

Dawn's approach in this discussion falls into a common creationist category, a rhetorical approach involving redefinition of words to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Dawn, the only reason it seems as if it's you against everybody is because everybody but you is using the correct definition of axiom.

To repeat again the bottom line, ID can only become accepted science by the same route as all other science, by providing supporting evidence within an interpretive framework that that is sufficiently cogent and persuasive to become accepted by the scientific community. Merely declaring ID axiomatic doesn't make it so, and such rhetorical approaches aren't going to convince anyone.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by NosyNed, posted 12-04-2007 11:09 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2007 12:16 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 304 of 312 (438390)
12-04-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by NosyNed
12-04-2007 11:09 AM


Re: Summarizing it.
Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master - that's all.

All I know I learned from Alice and Archy.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by NosyNed, posted 12-04-2007 11:09 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 350 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 305 of 312 (438391)
12-04-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Percy
12-04-2007 11:27 AM


Re: Summarizing it.
Dawn, the only reason it seems as if it's you against everybody is because everybody but you is using the correct definition of axiom.

To repeat again the bottom line, ID can only become accepted science by the same route as all other science, by providing supporting evidence within an interpretive framework that that is sufficiently cogent and persuasive to become accepted by the scientific community. Merely declaring ID axiomatic doesn't make it so, and such rhetorical approaches aren't going to convince anyone.

Wow I did no know we got to go past 300. Is is surprising you fellas cannot even go by your own rules.

Once again for you percy. AXIOM: Self-evident truth that needs no proof. If you have a problem with the dictionary, please write your own.

ID and its methods were an was an accepted science, (Fact, axiom and deductive reasoning), long before the so-caled 'scientific method'.

Please enjoy
D bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 12-04-2007 11:27 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by JB1740, posted 12-04-2007 12:19 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 4022 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 306 of 312 (438393)
12-04-2007 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Dawn Bertot
12-04-2007 12:16 PM


Re: Summarizing it.
ID and its methods were an was an accepted science, (Fact, axiom and deductive reasoning), long before the so-caled 'scientific method'.

and science evolved beyond this because of the numerous problems that have been repeatedly explained in this thread with doing science that way. If you are arguing for us to return to non-evidence based science, you need to demonstrate why science done that way works better than the way we currently do science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2007 12:16 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2007 12:24 PM JB1740 has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 350 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 307 of 312 (438394)
12-04-2007 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by PurpleYouko
12-04-2007 11:20 AM


Re: Summarizing it.
An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated and is considered as self-evident or as an initial necessary consensus for a theory building or acceptation. Therefore, it is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths.

And of course this is an unwarrented conclusion that does not follow from even the very definition provided. Think about it. he added this to support his thinking.

No, Please enjoy.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-04-2007 11:20 AM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 350 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 308 of 312 (438396)
12-04-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by JB1740
12-04-2007 12:19 PM


Re: Summarizing it.
and science evolved beyond this because of the numerous problems that have been repeatedly explained in this thread with doing science that way. If you are arguing for us to return to non-evidence based science, you need to demonstrate why science done that way works better than the way we currently do science.

This of course is not the same as saying that the method discussed is not truth of act. Its application and usage is what you need to refute, not that there may be some other way as well. Not rocket science fellas.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by JB1740, posted 12-04-2007 12:19 PM JB1740 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by JB1740, posted 12-04-2007 12:41 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 350 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 309 of 312 (438398)
12-04-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by NosyNed
12-04-2007 11:09 AM


Re: Summarizing it.
Nosyned writes.
And this does, indeed, summarize the whole thread.

The Fifth is THE classic example of an axiom. The use of axioms in Euclid's geometry is the classic use of them. Heck it is probably why we use the word axiom (which sure looks Greek to me).

That you can make the above statement shows how far off in your own little world you are.

If I am not mistaken it was you fellas contention, throughout this whole thread, that for an axiom to be valid it must correspond to physical things which would allow a physical test. But since it is characteristic of you fellas to change the rules constantly, then it does not suprise me at this point, that you would make this statement now.

Further, I restate my position, his so-called axiom is nothing of the sort. And we call it an axiom, because it is descriptive of itself, not vis versa. Enjoy Though.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by NosyNed, posted 12-04-2007 11:09 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 4022 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 310 of 312 (438399)
12-04-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Dawn Bertot
12-04-2007 12:24 PM


Re: Summarizing it.
This of course is not the same as saying that the method discussed is not truth of act.

What the heck does this mean? Which method are you referring to here?
What the heck is "truth of act?"

Its application and usage is what you need to refute,

What is its? Application and usage of what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2007 12:24 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2007 1:07 PM JB1740 has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 350 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 311 of 312 (438404)
12-04-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by JB1740
12-04-2007 12:41 PM


Re: Summarizing it.
What the heck does this mean? Which method are you referring to here?
What the heck is "truth of act?"

and science evolved beyond this because of the numerous problems that have been repeatedly explained in this thread with doing science that way. If you are arguing for us to return to non-evidence based science, you need to demonstrate why science done that way works better than the way we currently do science.

Sorry for that typo. You made the above statement. And I was simply saying that your statement is not the equivolent of saying that the axiomatic method is not truth in Fact. You need to demonstrate why that method is not valid as well as the oldest. Thats all i was trying to say.

Why has the magical, mystical wizard, not chastised us yet for going over. Can anybody answer this axiom?

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by JB1740, posted 12-04-2007 12:41 PM JB1740 has not yet responded

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 312 of 312 (438406)
12-04-2007 1:11 PM


This correspondence must end, NOW!
OK chaps and chapettes. This is well over the 300 mark. JB joined a bit too late in the day.

As has been suggested any relevant sequelae should go in the Proposed New Topics forum.

TTFN,

AW

Edited by AdminWounded, : No reason given.


RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019