The use of logic in establishing truths

I find it extremely curious, that at the end of your thread, instead of posting a summary of your position, you spent the last few posts railing against other people for not accepting what you claim to be true: the best argument would have been to demonstrate that it was true. Instead you tried to badger people into accepting your argument as valid. But (1) you have already equivocated (changed what you meant) from "dead men tell no tales") and (2) it is not a silly question for someone who really believes in the supernatural, in ghosts or the ability of seers in seances to communicate with the dead or that zombies are real. Some people do believe this, and therefore the statement "dead men tell no tales" is not self-evident or true for those people. You need to make some assumptions to make it true. The most basic assumption you need to make is that this will not happen in the future.Now you can say that the opinions of those people don't count, but when you do, that you can make any logical argument "true" ... and at the same time render it totally trite and valueless. But a conclusion is not a fact. A conclusion is valid if the logical structure is valid and there are no logical fallacies in the premises, a conclusion is sound if the structure is valid and the premises are true, but the conclusion cannot be 100% absolutely and positively true unless the premises are.As has been demonstrated, "axiom" = "self-evident truth" = a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of making a logical argument.We cannot guarantee the truth of any statement so you have to start with an "assumed truth" for any logical argument.Based on "assumed truths" a sound logical argument can only conclude a "tentative truth" -- this is the essence of what all scientific theories are.We can test those sound logical arguments against objective reality, facts, evidence, but all they can show you is that for the tests made the conclusion has not been invalidated. This is what empirical science - natural and social science - does with the scientific method.A sound logical argument can never get beyond a "tentative truth" no matter how much it is tested against the real world by the scientific method. This is why (empirical) science (natural and social science) is tentative.A sound logical argument on it's own cannot establish a fact about the natural world. To argue otherwise is to argue that scientific theories can be proven true.I've made a similar argument at Self-evident Truths ... must be assumed (which will likely not get promoted at this time due to this thread and PaulK's An Introduction to Logic being in use).Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : scientific methodEdited by RAZD, : trite result

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

jb1740 writesI love you guys, but do you hear what you are saying here. I am busy at present but would really like to continue the fray, if I still permitted on the website. D Bertot

Back in the 1970s or so most folks were most confident that the planet was headed for a global iceage. By applying logic to observed fulfillment of numerous Biblical prophecies corroborated by other Biblical supportive phenomena I concluded that given so many other prophecies proved to be accurate, likely the prophecies relative to latter day global warming would also come to pass. I was among a small minority who discounted an iceage. My point is that quite often the masses have had it wrong, including many fundamental churchmen who were either not into the prophecies or had not done their homework sufficiently on them.I apply some of this logic to aspects of the Biblical record regarding events such as a global flood as well. Then via logic I conclude that properties of the atmosphere must have been very different before the flood etc. The masses have been taught otherwise from childhood on. Therefore if the ideology the masses have had programmed into their minds is wrong the masses may prove to be in error on a number of important accounts after all is said and done.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

So you're saying that even for something that is self-evident to everyone, because everyone could be wrong it still can't be considered axiomatic, which means that Dawn Bertot's criteria for being axiomatic is incorrect?--Percy

Buz, when you quote someone and attribute the quote, I think you should make sure you've got the right person.In the rest of your post, you seem to be regarding a speculation about the future as something that might be regarded as a truth, which is odd. You're also confusing "logic" with "faith" when you talk about your views on the Bible and the flood. You mean that all the religions believed in today might be rejected as false, as so many others have been in the past?Perhaps we should stop programming children with religions, then.

Yes, what we are saying is that there are no 'self-evident truths' or axioms that are 100% absolutely and positively true, that they are logical conventions, statements that are assumed to be true to see where the argument goes. We are saying that the best you can get from a sound logical argument is a tentative conclusion, a "tentative truth" that is true as long as the premises are\remain true. This is what scientific theories are.You cannot make up reality, and you cannot conclude an objective fact that exists in the real world. You cannot prove a scientific theory is true.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

Or your conclusions about the bible are false. Logic always has a double edge. It wasn't me buz. I'd make it(95%-99.9%) Very Confident but STILL Tentative Truth - Almost as true as fact
(100%) True - FactEnjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

Using axioms then, can we be sure that if
A is the same as a B is the same as a C, that C is the same as an A.?

---

This simply amases me that a Person as yourself with obvious education would make a round about claim, as you have, that he or she actually thinks that the axiom under consideration, is actually something that could be at some point believable. this is simply astounding. Nothing is a 'logical convention', that is obviously irrefutable and testable to the extent that this is. Since this is a website of evidence, please provide the evidence that refutes it, at any time of your choosing. This type of attitude demonstrates a complete lack of objectivity and reason. Any thinking person would know and understand that such a truth, of this axiom is incontravertable by simple observation. Its only been 3 billion years, how many more do we need to see if its true or not. D Bertot

On the contrary. I showed that by your inability to refute any of those points in my summation, in any small degree, I established the fact that FACTS can and are gathered by the process I set out. then conclude that ID most certainly falls under the category of science, with application of axioms and logic. I was rauiling about the fact that by your lack of evidence, my arguments, points and positions stood unassaulted. D Bertot Your right their OPINIONS dont count, we need facts to disprove the axiom. Outside of that the above sentence makes no sense I have already answered the rest of the above numerous times by demonstrating that there are REAL FACTS THAT DO EXIST, independant of our logic, approval or wishes. You seem to think you are the one that gets to decide what is real or not real. Its already there and real before you get there. You verbage does not CHANGE REALITY, EVEN IF YOU DONT LIKE TO ACCEPT OR ACKNOWLEDGE IT. There may indeed be at times 'tenative conclusions', but there are also, real facts that do not fall under this category. ie, dead men tell no tales. If its not true quit talking at it and show me otherwise, provide the evidence not fancy words. D Bertot

jaderis writes Wrong DBs illustration of a designer proceeds from an axiom, the conclusion of which is irrefutable. However, if you think you are better than all the others that have tried, go for it. Provide another possible explanation than the only known three.Only half right. axioms are composed of premises, that (now watch it) that require no proof, there conclusions are valid and irrefutable. If you dont think I am right give it a try. Show me how dead men talk, and I dont want to hear you just talk, show me some EVIDENCE, that you fellas speak of so often.D Bertot

Maybe we shouldn't use logic when talking about Evolution

Your post demonstrates two things.Firstly that completely erroneous processes can sometimes lead to correct conclusions.
(Although I have to add that I don't believe that many people were really confident that a new ice age was coming in the near future !)
We know that your "prophecy fulfilments" rely on misrepresenting the Bible and it should be quite obvious that there is no reason to suppose that twisitng the prophecies in your favoured direction would produce valid predictions about the future.However, although the power of falsehood has serious limits.

quote:

---

I apply some of this logic to aspects of the Biblical record regarding events such as a global flood as well. Then via logic I conclude that properties of the atmosphere must have been very different before the flood etc. T

---

Firstly you are NOT applying logic. All you are applying is the dogmatic worship of Buzsaw. The reason you "believe" that the atmosphere was different is because you cling to the baseless and false assumption that this can somehow explain away a large amount of evidence that proves you wrong. It can't. And you've run away from discussing it often enough to KNOW that you have no case.And you can forget about your disgusting habit of whining that I'm being mean for pointing out these facts. You brought the issue up. So I'm free to point out that your "logic" leads you to complete nonsense.

quote:

---

Wrong DBs illustration of a designer proceeds from an axiom, the conclusion of which is irrefutable. However, if you think you are better than all the others that have tried, go for it. Provide another possible explanation than the only known three.

---

Nobody has to. If your statement is truly correct then it is entirely trivial and gets you nowhere. I pointed out that fact in the earlier thread.I'd also add that you might do better to let this thread settle down and learn something from it. Since you don't understand logic at all your interjections are generating far more heat than light.

Correct. And here we find the chink in your argument.An axiom is something that is accepted as true by concensus, meaning that is is considered with high confidence to be true based on past observation and/or testing, or just for the sake of argument (could be true, but needs further validation which the predictions of the axiom in the context of the argument may provide)."Dead men tell no tales" (in the way you define "tell") is only accepted as "true" because of past observation and testing. The fact that physical corpses cannot speak is only accepted as true because it has been repeatedly observed that physical corpses do not speak. You definition of "axiom" requires no proof, however, something, anything that is accepted as true needed proof in order to be accepted as "true." Nothing is accepted as true without some kind of "proof."Your "axiom," however, can still be invalidated if ever there comes a time when a physical corpse speaks.You proposed, in the parent thread, that a supernatural creator who designed all life was an "axiom." I think that you think that an axiom is something which cannot be refuted (and therefore needs no proof). You are correct in one aspect. In an argument (or a scientific hypothesis) an "axiom" needs no proof. It must stand on its own as a premise in order to see where the argument goes (meaning that is must be at least common sensically plausible). It is accepted as true (either based on previous testing, observation, or just as a common sense idea), but if further investigation shows that conclusions based on the axiom are invalid, then the axiom is more than likely not true (depending on multiple, independent confirmation and open to new data).Now, in pure logic, as many here have explained to you, an argument can be valid (meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises), but that doesn't make it absolutely 100% true.The premises have to be shown to be "true" in order for the conclusion to be "true" (i.e in order for the argument to be sound). And the conclusion is still subject to further testing. If the premises and the conclusion are all shown to be "true," then the logical arguent is sound. And, even then, something may come along later on to invalidate either the premises or the conclusion or all of it. None of it is True.And this is where your problem lies. You have been told, or developed on your own, the idea that logic solves everything. If you knew anything about logic you would not be so quick to believe that. Yes, we're confronted by Spock who is supposed to be the "scientific, rational" character on Star Trek, but Spock (sorry to inform you) is not a real person and his lines were written by screenwriters and not logicians or scientists or even theologians.We often hear phrases like "logically speaking" or "it's only logical" but do you, Dawn Bertot, really know what those phrases mean? Logic is not common sense. Logic, all by itself, is not adequate to explain the world we live in. You can try and it might make sense in your head, but the sense in your head is not enough to explain the world around us. The logic and the "axioms" must be tested to make sure they correspond to reality.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea