Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The use of logic in establishing truths
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 61 of 171 (438967)
12-06-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ringo
12-06-2007 4:04 PM


Re: Observation/Truth
And that discovery depends on consensus among the discoverers. If Mr. A thinks he's discovered X and Mr. B claims it's Y, where is the "fact"? Facts is facts only as far as people agree that they're facts.
You seem to be confusing perceived reality with "real" reality or "absolute" reality. If there is an absolute reality, we can never know what it is. We can only know what we perceive. And our perceptions are more reliable if they agree with the perceptions of others. That's why most of us don't believe it when some perceive dead men talking. The individual perception is trumped by the consensus.
And you seem to be confusing obvious REALITY, with some definiton you have contrived, that only you and a few others seem to believe. Real and absolute reality are demonstratable facts, not simply perceptions. "I think therefore I am." Existence is real not simply percieved. You yourself seem to intimate the validity of Real and absolute reality, you therefore admit my proposition that facts are real before anyone gets to them. The above definition you offered doesnt even make sense in the observable world. Again reguardless of how I percieve the principle of Gravity, it is real and the same all the time. Again dead men cant talk even if the consensus says they can or cannot. Enough said.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 12-06-2007 4:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 12-06-2007 10:12 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 86 by JB1740, posted 12-07-2007 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 87 by JB1740, posted 12-07-2007 8:12 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 62 of 171 (438968)
12-06-2007 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by PurpleYouko
12-06-2007 3:36 PM


I already addressed this in my earlier post.
Do you believe that Jesus resurrected people? Did they talk afterward?
Do you believe that Jesus himself rose from the dead and spoke to people?
Furthermore do you believe he was raised as a living man? With a giant hole in his side? I think not.
He was a dead man and he spoke.
Now I personally don't believe a word of this but I can assure you that many millions of people do believe it so to them, the phrase "dead men tell no tales" is completely untrue.
Then there people who are absolutely certain that they can hear the dead speak to them.
These include people who go to seances or mediums, Ancestor worshippers and many many others.
You can't possibly deny that there is a not one single person on this planet who honestly believes that they or someone else has ever received a message from a dead person.
If you really insist then I will have no trouble in filling the entire available space of this server with documented examples of people who believe that the dead can, do and have spoken. The internet is so full of them that it isn't even worth while to bother giving you an example.
However just to prove the point, here is one anyway
Listen carefully. When people are alive they are not dead. If they were resurrected or came back to life they are not dead. Dead people dont say anything. Yes I believe these stories, but you do not. So whats the point?
What people say and what they can prove are two different things. This takes care of the is whole post. The FACT, that you need is NOT what they say or believe, but what they can demonstrate. Please provide the evidence.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-06-2007 3:36 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-06-2007 11:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 63 of 171 (438970)
12-06-2007 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by PurpleYouko
12-06-2007 3:36 PM


PurpleYoukos earlier definition of truth from post 5. {qsMy own personal usage of the word could be described as follows.
that which represents the actual state of reality in the universe, whether we are aware of it or not.
'FACT' means pretty much the same thing to me.[/qs]
Qustion for you. Do you remember this definiion of TRUTH you gave in post no. 5 of this thread. Just about everything you have said since then contradics the above definition of truth and Facts.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-06-2007 3:36 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 64 of 171 (438972)
12-06-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Observation/Truth
Dawn Bertot writes:
Real and absolute reality are demonstratable facts, not simply perceptions.
If that was true, you could demonstrate it. But how would you demonstrate it? I still have only my perception of your demonstration.
Again dead men cant talk even if the consensus says they can or cannot.
Again, how do you know that dead men can't talk? You have the perception that they don't, but somebody else has the perception that they do.
In the end, the synapses firing in your brain are all the "reality" you have. You can't "know" that they have any correspondence with the observable world unless they agree with somebody else's. The more agreement, the more confidence that your perceptions are "real".

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 9:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 171 (438975)
12-06-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 11:26 AM


"no conclusion is fact" hasnot been refuted yet ...
It is most certainly true that if something is obvious you dont (sic) have to STATE IT, (axiom) ,and that should be the case here. But you are not even willing to admit the obvious. And I am dealing with people that are not willing to admit even the simplest truths or be remotley (sic) objective about the FACT that even REALITY is indeed a fact. In other wordrs, (sic) is it a FACT that we are here and we exist and that is a Fact and a truth in reality. Will you even admit this simple point. Wouldnt (sic) you even say we can be 100% sure of this fact? Have fun.
Logic, particularly the science of logic (which you have not yet used), does not deal with reality, it deals with logic. Premise + premise ⇒ conclusion. Methodology, structural validity, and sound logical arguments are the tools of logic. Logic is wonderful at what it does, but it is only an abstract model, it isn't reality, it cannot make up a fact that is a "truth in reality" because it doesn't exist outside an abstract intellectual speculation.
And if your only argument is to repeat yourself and then claim that your conclusion is "obvious" when nobody agrees with you, then the evidence is that it is not obvious. Saying it is obvious doesn't make it so. Saying it is true doesn't make it so. Not in logic, not in the real world.
You presume to lecture us about logic when it is clear that - to put it politely - you understand little about logic and can hardly express yourself clearly, to say nothing of logically. Example:
Does a statement like the one above if even require or merit an response.
Your argument is not improved when you don't refute the points that people make, preferring to restate your position and say it "amases (sic)" you that people actually have the gall to disagree with you.
Does a statement like the one above if even require or merit an response. (sic) Answer NO. It makes absolutely no SENSE. You are kiddng (sic) me when you say my positon (sic) about dead people talking, does not derive from any known facts or objective facts. This is simply ludicrous. But it does point up the fact, the extremes people will go to avoid a (sic) obvious point. Again, quit quibbling about my answers and provide the evidence that demonstrates that dead men talk. Wow.
This whole paragraph is an argument (what part of it that makes sense) from incredulity - a logical fallacy, an invalid argument. Your inability to say anything else gives the impression that you are really having trouble with refuting the point with actual logic.
Do you deny that there are people that believe in ghosts, seances and zombies?
Do you claim that they would think "dead men tell no tales" was self-evident?
Do you claim that they would think "dead men tell no tales" was true?
Do you deny that this refutes your argument? It does. It demonstrates a condition under which your statement is not perceived as true.
Again there is no ARGUMENT to be gathered from the fact that people believe in ghost an (sic) the (sic) such, therefore there is nothing for me to respond to. The fact that they believe in these things is not direct evidence, as the type (sic) that I can simply see dead people are doing nothig. (sic) Maybe you can convince the amazing Randy with your ghost argument and win the check.
Your problem is not whether their belief is true or not, but that they do not, will not, see your premise as either self-evident or true. You claim that you can establish a fact by logic alone, and in order to do that you need to start with a premise that is perceived as 100% absolutely and positively true by everyone.
As I said before, you can discount these people as being irrational, so their opinion doesn't count. However, when you do this, you make any conclusion just as valid, and any argument just as sound. For example, I could argue that the earth is flat, that everyone who disagrees is irrational, and therefore the world is obviously flat. Now we can discuss the evidence that actually shows the earth is not flat, but then we are no longer concluding a fact by logic alone. It is not the logic that makes the fact true, the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun is independent of the logical argument, there is no causal relationship of one to the other.
No its a (sic) absolute fact that dead men talk to anyone, not a theory. This is how you test the validity and certaintly (sic) of an axiom. If not please invalidate the theory, It should be quite simple using your mighty 'scienctific (sic) mehtod. (sic) And I agree with you its not Logic that proves that a fact is real, but the obvious fact (axiom)itself. And in this case as in others it is so clear that you have to be completley (sic) unobjective (sic) to not see it.
Again, this shows a lack of understanding of logic, and of how science works.
If we are going to apply the scientific method to this, move from the abstract world of logic alone into the world or natural science, we start with a couple of premises, axioms, that we assume to be true. There is a bit of overlap between some of these, but that is intentional to cover all the bases:
We assume that there is an objective reality.
We assume that this objective reality is the same for everyone.
We assume that the evidence of reality is always true to the reality, that the evidence is fact.
We assume that we can understand this evidence, this fact of objective reality.
We assume that our understanding may be wrong or incomplete.
Philosophers have not been able to establish that these are anything more than assumptions, even though they have spent thousands of people-years at the task.
Finally we assume that supernatural action\power\behavior is not part of the understanding for natural effects\objects\behavior. This doesn't rule out supernatural actions\powers\behaviors, just make them outside the understanding of natural effects\objects\behavior. Ghosts, seances and zombies would, if true, involve supernatural action\powers\behavior.
Then we look at the evidence: do dead bodies appear able to talk or do anything immediately after death?
Then we form a theory: dead men tell no tales
(we assume "men" includes women)
Then we test the evidence: are there any instances of dead people telling tales?
People talk about the evidence of ghosts, seances and zombies. Scientists go out to see if any of these claims are true. They find evidence of scams and cons and such, but they cannot rule out positively that such things do not occur. People still believe in ghosts, seances and zombies. Literal fundamentalist believers of the bible will tell you that it is a documented historic fact that Lazarus was risen from the dead, and lived to tell tales of it.
Can the evidence prove that dead people tell no tales? No. The reason is that for ,this to be true, it has to be true for all instances that have ever been, and that ever will be, while to be false, all it takes is one (1) instance of a dead person being observed telling tales. Whether this would demonstrate a supernatural action\power\behavior is involved is irrelevant, a single instance of a dead person telling tales refutes and invalidates the theory. It could happen tomorrow. Thus no matter how much evidence we accumulate without a single dead person telling tales, it only demonstrates that the theory is sound so far. It is tentatively true, tentatively, until proven false.
And even if we never find actual evidence of a single tale telling dead person, logic - especially logic alone - does not make the statement true. There could still be instances that we don't know about.
On a recent radio show a man was talking about finding out about his dad. He was cleaning out his mother's house after her death, and was about to throw out a box of papers, but something made him stop and go through them. They all turned out to be letters from his dad to his mom back during WWII telling of his experiences and talking about the infant son he left behind, what he would teach him when he got home. The father was killed in the war, and these letters were the only record the son had of what his father was like. Can you prove that no 'guardian angel' made the son read the papers? Can you prove that a ghost of the father could not have been involved? Could not have even just written those letters?
We may be able to rule out supernatural action\power\behavior from our experience but can we rule it out entirely? I think not. I'm a Deist, so I take a open approach to such spiritual things and say you cannot rule it out, it may be our understanding is wrong or incomplete. I consider it possible that the people that believe in ghost, seances and zombies could be (partially) correct - there could be some truth there that we don't yet understand.
I cannot believe that a person of your education would try to defend the above syllogism, let alone state it in the first place. The first premise is completley (sic) non-sensical (sic) and completley (sic) non-demonstratable (sic) from any point of fact gathering. Again if it is please provide it and quit talking about it. I wont (sic) even ask you to prove it is wrong, that dead men dont (sic) talk, just demonstrate it from any reasonable position involving FACTS. You have fun now.
Again, the argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. The fact that you cannot believe something does not automatically make it false, you need to show a reason that it is false.
All I have provided are logical reasons why your argument is false. All I have done is demonstrate that the axioms and self-evident truths you have provided so far rely on the assumption of truth and are not true on their own.
Like the evidence for dead people talking, this also relies on all axioms and self-evident truths relying on the assumption of truth for this argument to be true, and it has to be true for all instances that have ever been and that ever will be, while to be false all it takes is one (1) instance of an axiom or a self-evident truth actually being true, 100% absolutely and positively true for one and all. So far I am batting 1000, but perhaps the next one will do the trick eh?
I'm having a ball.
Message 39
The demonstratable (sic) fact and the direct evidence that dead people talk to no one (sic) is not assertion or quibbling. If it is please prove me wrong. I am not being Glib, yopu (sic) simply offer nothing of SUBSTANCE for me to reply to.
But the evidence does not demonstrate that this will always be the case. You haven't seen all the evidence. We don't have to prove you ARE wrong, we just have to prove that you CAN be wrong. That standard is met.
RAZDs (sic) excellent wording or whatever, is not a substitute for a argument, the conclusion of which should be here is the direct evidence that shows why dead men dont (sic) talk. Just say you are licked and we can move on.
Can you prove that it will never happen in a scientifically valid documented experience?
If you can prove that it is 100% absolutely and positively impossible, naturally and supernaturally, then we can move on.
Message 41
I of course later stated what I thought all others would know to be true in what I said, that 'Something or Someone, who's (sic) existence is eternal,created (sic) all things.
But you provide no foundation for this assertion. You assume things fit your belief. I assume a point creation that enables the development of the universe as we know it, but I also know this is an assumption, and not a conclusion based on fact. I don't presume such knowledge.
Its of course, impossible as I have pointed out before to think of any others without simply rearranging these possibilites (sic) and definitons, (sic) as you have here to get any other possibilites. (sic)
This does not answer bluegenes point that each of your three possibilities do not necessarily explain existence. Because they do not necessarily explain existence, they are not necessarily a complete set of possibilities.
The natural world is and our understanding based on science are full of things that we didn't used to think possible.
When it comes down to things we don't know, the best answer we have is ... we don't know.
When bluegenes or others show that your three possibilities don't have to be true, they do not need to demonstrate a fourth possibility to prove your three are not true, because the answer can be that we don't know the reality, that we don't know what happened.
Can you prove that we do know? Can you demonstrate evidence that even one of your three premises 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 11:26 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 171 (438980)
12-06-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 3:18 PM


And of course, "Just came into existence", is the exact same as saying the created themselves.", Or that they came from another source, which just pushes the process back further to the Creator.. Your wasring (sic) you time, its been tried better than you and I.
No, it isn't the same. One requires a creator and the other doesn't. Take life - the origin of life on earth as an example. Your possibilities are:
  1. life was created on earth
  2. the earth\universe was created such that life would develop from the raw materials on place(s) where conditions were just right = earth
  3. life just developed on earth from the raw materials
Logically you cannot - even with all the evidence on earth - distinguish (2) from (3). Even with evidence we cannot (yet) distinguish (1) from (2) from (3), because the first/oldest evidence found yet that could show life developing shows it fully developed as single cell life while the evidence some 500 million years before that shows no life. Did (1), (2) or (3) happen? We don't know.
We can apply the same logic to the origin of the universe with the same answer: the evidence is inconclusive and we don't know.
Its anxiom (sic) of the highest order.
Only if you assume it is true, and then only if you assume that some truths are higher\better\bigger\truer than others. Nothing like a little hyperbole eh?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 3:18 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 1:23 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 171 (438983)
12-06-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
12-06-2007 4:46 PM


Re: The Way I See It
... it seems to me that Dawn is attempting to draw logical conclusions about the real world which he then declares to be axioms that are incontrovertibly true.
And his "logical conclusions" are in the nature of All A is B, B! therefore A. Even without the whole evaluation of his various A's and B's the structure of the argument is invalid, and therefore his various conclusions cannot be valid or sound, no matter how true the premises are.
... are making a point about the tentativity of scientific knowledge of the natural world. By definition, nothing in science is "incontrovertibly true", so if by some logical process directed at the natural world Dawn convinces himself that ID is "incontrovertibly true", then ID's lack of tentativity rules it out as science.
It's more than that, he will have to show that theory can be proven 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 12-06-2007 4:46 PM Percy has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 68 of 171 (438984)
12-06-2007 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 9:21 PM


What people say and what they can prove are two different things. This takes care of the is whole post. The FACT, that you need is NOT what they say or believe, but what they can demonstrate. Please provide the evidence.
The evidence is that they believe it.
We need nothing more.
The fact that anyone believes it is more than enough to prove that your 'axiom' is NOT self evident.
If something is self evident then, by definition, everyone will recognize its truth when they see it.
The FACT is that some people do not believe your axiom so it is, by definition, NOT an axiom. Even by your definition of the word.
You assert that it is an obvious self evident truth that dead mean do not talk.
I provided evidence that there are people who do not believe your 'self evident truth'. In fact to these people, their 'self evident truth' is that dead men do tale tales. They honestly believe that they communicate with these dead people on a day to day basis.
Like I said, it doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe. The plain facts are that lots of people believe lots of different things and have lots of utterly conflicting 'self evident truths'
Find something that every last person believes as a self evident truth and we might get somewhere with your definition of 'axiom'. "dead men tell no tales" isn't it I'm afraid.
{ABE}
Listen carefully. When people are alive they are not dead. If they were resurrected or came back to life they are not dead. Dead people dont say anything. Yes I believe these stories, but you do not. So whats the point?
On the point of Jesus talking to people after the death of his physical body, the story says that he came back and spoke to people (Thomas for example) in his physical form such that his wounds were still there. It was supposedly several days before he ascended to heaven and became a divine being once more. During this time he was in effect an animated corpse. He wasn't a spirit since he had a physical body. He wasn't a living man since the body he used was still dead.
I may not believe this but I certainly know the story very well.
Edited by PurpleYouko, : Forgot to address this point

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 9:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-06-2007 11:16 PM PurpleYouko has not replied
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 12:37 AM PurpleYouko has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 171 (438986)
12-06-2007 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by PurpleYouko
12-06-2007 11:07 PM


Down with Logic
It's too hard to go through and reference everything. So I'm not going to.
Some honorable member refered to Euclids axioms. Euclid was a brilliant Scientist.
However according to wiki:
"Euclidean geometry is an axiomatic system, in which all theorems ("true statements") are derived from a finite number of axioms... Euclid gives five postulates (axioms):
1. Any two points can be joined by a straight line.
2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
4. All right angles are congruent.
5. Parallel postulate. If two lines intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough.
Number 1: Any two points can be joined by a straight line.
They can't. There is no such thing as a straight line: Space is subject to distortion.
2. False.
3. False.
4. True.
5. False(it can be disproved)
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.?
Yes!
Why?
does X=X?
It's an axiom!
Logic should be left in the realm of Mathematical Science where is plays an important role in gaining knowledge through the use of deduction.
ID requires an axiom of a Designer.
Evolution requires it's own axiom.
Neither are acceptable for a logical arguement. As has been shown throughout this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-06-2007 11:07 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by sidelined, posted 12-06-2007 11:33 PM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2007 12:26 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 70 of 171 (438988)
12-06-2007 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by LucyTheApe
12-06-2007 11:16 PM


Re: Down with Logic
LucyTheApe
Evolution requires it's own axiom.
And the axiom required for evolution would be what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-06-2007 11:16 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 12:16 AM sidelined has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 171 (438992)
12-07-2007 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by sidelined
12-06-2007 11:33 PM


Re: Down with Logic
Randomness?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by sidelined, posted 12-06-2007 11:33 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 12-07-2007 12:24 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 72 of 171 (438993)
12-07-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by LucyTheApe
12-07-2007 12:16 AM


Evolution's Axioms
Randomness?
That sure doesn't look much like a statement of any axiom I have ever seen. Perhaps you could explain that?
The only place where a random process is core to the evolutionary model is the random occurrence of mutations in the genome. This is known to be the case and is tested for so it is not an axiom.
Perhaps you have some other idea about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 12:16 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 171 (438994)
12-07-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by LucyTheApe
12-06-2007 11:16 PM


Re: Down with Logic
Euclid was a brilliant Scientist.
Euclid was a mathematician, to be precise.
Number 1: Any two points can be joined by a straight line.
They can't. There is no such thing as a straight line: Space is subject to distortion.
2. False.
3. False.
4. True.
5. False(it can be disproved)
Whether or not Euclid's postulates are true about the world we actually inhabit is not actually relevant to geometry. They're defined as true, assumed to be true; that's what it means to be an "axiom." They're taken as true without actually having to be true. The conclusions that are drawn from them (say, that the sum of the angles of a triangle will equal 180 degrees) are only true insofar as you've already accepted the axioms.
If, as non-Euclidian geometers do, you reject the fifth postulate and substitute a different axiom, you can prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle will exceed 180 degrees.
Neither conclusion is any "more right" than the other. They're both right - depending on what axioms you start with. That's why axioms are of so little use to science.
Evolution requires it's own axiom.
Not so. Evolution is not based on axioms; like all good science, it's based on observation and experimentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-06-2007 11:16 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 12:55 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 78 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 4:07 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 79 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 4:45 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 74 of 171 (438996)
12-07-2007 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by PurpleYouko
12-06-2007 11:07 PM


The evidence is that they believe it.
We need nothing more.
The fact that anyone believes it is more than enough to prove that your 'axiom' is NOT self evident.
It simply is no evidence that people believe things.Enough said.
On the point of Jesus talking to people after the death of his physical body, the story says that he came back and spoke to people (Thomas for example) in his physical form such that his wounds were still there. It was supposedly several days before he ascended to heaven and became a divine being once more. During this time he was in effect an animated corpse. He wasn't a spirit since he had a physical body. He wasn't a living man since the body he used was still dead.
I may not believe this but I certainly know the story very well.
ALIVE, DEAD. ALIVE, DEAD. Jesus was then alive. Hence the foundation of the Christian belief. Hence he was not dead. Dead men tell no tales. The expression animated corpes is a contradiction of terms. I am not trying to be funny here, only to help you see that it is an axiom of the highest order.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-06-2007 11:07 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2007 9:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 75 of 171 (438997)
12-07-2007 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
12-07-2007 12:26 AM


Re: Down with Logic
Whether or not Euclid's postulates are true about the world we actually inhabit is not actually relevant to geometry. They're defined as true, assumed to be true; that's what it means to be an "axiom." They're taken as true without actually having to be true. The conclusions that are drawn from them (say, that the sum of the angles of a triangle will equal 180 degrees) are only true insofar as you've already accepted the axioms.
If, as non-Euclidian geometers do, you reject the fifth postulate and substitute a different axiom, you can prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle will exceed 180 degrees.
Neither conclusion is any "more right" than the other. They're both right - depending on what axioms you start with. That's why axioms are of so little use to science.
Your a hard case frog man. Something cannot be taken as true, if it can be shown, to be not true. Further that is not the definition of axiom. The axioms that apply to these mathmatical processes may or may not be true depending on the accuracy of the mathmatical premises. However, axioms that apply to the real world are testable and at times can be demonstrated completely accurate, with no fear of contradiction. Axioms are of course more applicable to natural science than they are to any other abstract method or fact gathering.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2007 12:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2007 10:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024