|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The use of logic in establishing truths | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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: life was created on earththe earth\universe was created such that life would develop from the raw materials on place(s) where conditions were just right = earth 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. I beg your pardon. if you say, Just came into existence, without a creator or a creative act, then what was its source. If its not saying, created itself or came from nowhere, what are the other possibilites. It isnt an answer to say we just dont know. But keep trying it is interesting to watch. It is an axiom of the highest order. Ever forward D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
I said
randomness
NosyNed said That sure doesn't look much like a statement of any axiom I have ever seen. Perhaps you could explain that? I say no because I'm not a biologist. NosyNed saysThe 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. I say I don't have any idea what a random process is! Edited by LucyTheApe, : clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
crashfrog
Euclid was a brilliant Scientist.
Natural Scientists will quote: neverhijack science. Science was here thousands of years before LayMan Darwin ever entered the scene.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
quote: Once a postulate or an axiom is shown to be wrong we have a paradigm shift. All previous notions go out the window. Edited by LucyTheApe, : clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
DB writes: Dont mean to be obtuse here. Of course you came into existence, but you did not say you came into existence with no CREATIVE ACT,OR SELF creating acts. If you are going to offer and explanation, please give the full explanation when using it later in an illustration. You most certainly did just give another example of SELF CREATING. Try again. Self-creating? I certainly don't remember having an active role in my conception or birth. As for being created, I arrived by biological accident. I think we're having linguistic problems here, which happens in debates. But more important to the subject of the thread, in an earlier post (one you didn't reply to) I said this:
quote: Now, concentrate on the bit that I've put in bold. I think that what I've said is the kind of truism/axiom that you want to put forward. You want intelligent design of life on earth recognized as a possibility. The funny thing here is that if you'd stated that clearly, then you'll find no problems. It's certainly a possibility. So try phrasing it that way, and see who disagrees with you. When I.D. is debated here, all sides accept that kind of proposition. What "evolutionist" types will say is certainly not that I.D. is impossible, but that there's no evidence for it at this point in time. In order to become a scientific theory, one of the I.D. "hypotheses" (and there are many) has to have some evidence. That's why people like Behe attempt to show evidence. The same thing about "possibility" goes on the "how the universe came into existence" question. Take it from me, even atheists do not think that the involvement of a creator or creators is impossible. A better starting point for I.D. would be the truism: "Either life on earth involves interventionist intelligent design, or it doesn't." That's because I.D. isn't about a designer who created the universe and then just let nature roll. It claims that there are features in biology that cannot be produced by nature, and require intelligent intervention. Now, to your point about being able to arrive at conclusions, or what you call facts, by logic alone. I disagree. If you look at the above statement, it requires observations and knowledge, not just logic. We observe and know that there's life on earth. Then, we observe that, unlike some things, we cannot conclusively know from our observations and current knowledge whether or not it is intelligently designed. Only after these observations can we come up with the truism, and it's far from being an eternal one. If, for example, the intelligent designers manifest themselves, and tell us the whole story of life on earth, then the statement is no longer valid. So, it relies on the current state of our knowledge, and is not logic in a vacuum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I beg your pardon. if you say, Just came into existence, without a creator or a creative act, then what was its source. What was there before. We don't know what came before, so we can't really say one way or the other.
If its (sic) not saying, created itself or came from nowhere, what are the other possibilites.(sic) What was there before. We don't know what came before, so we can't really say one way or the other.
It isnt (sic) an answer to say we just dont (sic) know. But keep trying it is interesting to watch. But the fact is that we do not know. We don't know what came before, so we can't really say one way or the other. To claim we know is a falsehood. Any postulations about what came before are just that - postulations, not fact. The fact is we don't know.
It is an axiom of the highest order. Only if you assume it is true and then only if you assume that some truths are a different quality of truth from others. Is there more than one kind of truth? Have you figured out that repetition is not substantiating your argument with additional information yet? Have you figured out that all axioms and self-evident truths are statements that assumed to be true for the sake of the argument yet? Have you figured out that there are not any well known truths that are not assumed at some level to be true - or else we would all know about them? Have you figured out that your personal incredulity is not an argument yet? Have you figured out that you don't know what logic is yet? Keep trying. It's amusing to watch your one-horse show try to measure up to the circus that is reality. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added clarity Edited by RAZD, : circus 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Science was here thousands of years before LayMan Darwin ever entered the scene. Scientific method - Wikipedia
quote: Of course this was also when christianity was at its highest flowering in europe. We distinguish natural science from formal science by the application of the scientific method. You can think of it as a branch that evolved, and was selected for because formal science was inadequate at explaining the natural world. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Self-creating? Dawn Bertot is also equivocating on the various definitions of creation\creating. Your parents "creating" you from sperm and egg and massive doses of nutrients does not make them supernatural beings. You just came from what was there before.
"Either life on earth was designed, or it wasn't."
The funny thing here is that if you'd stated that clearly, then you'll find no problems. It's certainly a possibility. Of course those are possibilities. Dawn Bertot thinks he can show only one possibility by logic, but he knows so little about logic that he doesn't understand when he employs logical fallacies, and he doesn't understand that logical fallacies make an invalid argument. He doesn't want to state it that way because that shows that non-design is an equally valid possibility. He wants to use his false dichotomy coupled with equivocation on "created" argument to eliminate that appearance. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : sp correction 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
LucyTheApe
Once a postulate or an axiom is shown to be wrong we have a paradigm shift. All previous notions go out the window. Not at all. The only thing different is the axiom is found to be true only in a limited case.The sum of the angles of a triangle equaling 180 degrees is true in 2 dimensions.It simply fails as an axiom when applied to 3 or more dimensions.In that case the axiom undergoes a shift to adapt the model used to explain the new information. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given. "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
RAZD writes: But the fact is that we do not know. We don't know what was there before. To claim we know is a falsehood. Agreed (although before might not be the best word to describe something outside space-time). And everyone who's seriously thought about it agrees. The physicists agree. But the important thing for DB to understand is that the conclusion "at this point in time we do not know" is based on our observations and knowledge (or lack thereof), not on logic alone. Also important in this area might be to point out that the laws, logic and maths of the universe wouldn't apply. So we would have to include the infinite amount of possibilities that the human mind might not even be capable of thinking of, let alone understanding. Alternatively, of course, we could always just stick a "God of the Gaps" in the gaps, which, I suspect, is what DB's posting here is really all about. Or even a Deity of the gaps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5975 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
Again reguardless of how I percieve the principle of Gravity, it is real and the same all the time. Dawn, this statement is simply not true. Gravity is absolutely not the same all the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5975 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
Again dead men cant talk even if the consensus says they can or cannot. Enough said. Apparently not enough said. Go read Razd's comment #65. Then read it again. Then read it a third time and come back to us with point by point comments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dawn Bertot writes: In natural sciences theories, an axiom is considered as an evident truth which does not need any explanation and is accepted without any demonstration or proof in their application domain. The weakness, applicability or utility of such logically correct theories depends on the arbitrary choice of their axioms. Actually I like this definition very much...Sounds alot like my definiton. But you don't use this definition you say you like. An "evident truth which does not need any explanation and is accepted without any demonstration or proof" requires no evidence or study or argumentation. What you're calling an axiom, that ID explains the diversity of life, is actually the end result of a process of logical thinking. Which is fine, it just isn't an axiom. The other problem with your logic is that it is not connected to the natural world through observation and experiment.
Dawn Bertot writes: Percy writes: I don't think this definition is very clear, and I like better what Answers.com has to say in its 3rd definition. I can see why you dont like this one. I didn't like the Wiki definition as much as the Answers.com because it wasn't as clear, not because the definitions differ. Read the definitions again and you'll see they say the same thing, here they are:
Wikipedia writes: In natural sciences theories, an axiom is considered as an evident truth which does not need any explanation and is accepted without any demonstration or proof in their application domain. The weakness, applicability or utility of such logically correct theories depends on the arbitrary choice of their axioms. Answers.com writes: axiom: A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. The definitions are the same, but I prefer the Answers.com definition because it is more clear. Answers.com manages to avoid awkward phrases like "natural sciences theories" and "application domain" that appear in the Wiki definition, and Wiki's qualifying sentence about applicability depending upon an arbitrary choice of axioms introduces confusion instead of clarity. But again, the definitions are the same.
I guess you know I would ask what the first two definitons are. Hmmm I provided the 3rd definition from Answers.com, and so you're asking about the first two. I guess you're browser isn't working? Anyway, here's the full Answers.com entry:
Answers.com writes: ax·i·om (‘k's-m) n.
Obviously definition 3 is the one most applicable to logic as it might be employed by science, and it's the one that corresponds to Wiki's definition of logic in the domain of science. What we see is that you do not use the definition you say that you "like very much", because you go on to say:
An axiom as I have demonstrated does not have to be only a LOGICAL Starting point for some argument. Some have direct application and testability in the real world, accessiblity to the scientific method. Logic is only a source through the science of decuctive reasoning to asscertain existing, verifiable facts. If you're claiming that an axiom is actually the result of a process of deductive reasoning operating upon evidence from the real world, then you're wrong. That's not an axiom, it's a conclusion.
Yes if you insist on using terms (Tentativity) that you give an exclusive meaning and purpose to your positon, then you will never see the validity of the positon I have been setting out. I'm using science's definition of tentativity, the one set out by Popper years ago. It means that no scientific knowledge can ever be 100% certain, that it is always open to possible falsification. Nothing in science is ever "incontrovertibly true". If you're using a different definition of tentativity then you're not doing science.
The simple propositon in the beggining was to demonstrate even the possibility of a designer from a scientific method. Once again this makes clear how much your declarations about ID are not axioms. If they're the result of a process of scientific investigation, then they couldn't possibly an axiom. Axioms are starting points, conclusions are ending points.
No one questions that you fellas have monopolized the definiiton of the word science and have tried to make it mean something exclusive to yourself, But this not true. Science is the simple gathering of information or knowledge. This isn't the thread for a discussion about the definition of science, but while science does involve the gathering of evidence just as you say, more importantly it involves generalizing from the evidence to formulate theories from which predictions can be made that, if successful, provide increasing confidence that perhaps we are discovering something that is actually true about the real world.
Given Wikis definition it would seem very logical and reasonable that an axiom, would fall into this process. Whether or not axioms are part of the scientific process isn't what we're discussing. What we're discussing is your misunderstandings of axioms, logic and science. --Percy PS - Google toolbar provides a spellchecker for Internet Explorer, and Firefox has a built in spellchecker.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Apparently not enough said. Go read Razd's comment #65. Then read it again. Then read it a third time and come back to us with point by point comments. I have read it several times, and while the fella is very gifted with verbage, its no substitute for and answer to the simple proposition. Provide me with the evidence that dead men do indeed talk to people. You fellas always chastize the believer on this web site because you say they dont provide the evidence in these situations. I have. Now quit with the Sophistry BS and provide the evidence please. You cant have it both ways. You either believe the stories the people tell or you dont, choose a side and quit riding the fence. Quit using WHAT THEY SAY OR BELIEVE as a response or quit refering to them at all. All this talk about my inability to do this or that is an obvious fact that, you cannot provide the evidence to the contrary. I have been doing this long enough to recognize crap when I see it. Maybe RAZD needs to get with PurpleYoulo and figure out what actual evidence is in response to an argument. Now put that in your Smipe and Poke it.D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5975 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
I have read it several times, and while the fella is very gifted with verbage, its no substitute for and answer to the simple proposition. Provide me with the evidence that dead men do indeed talk to people. There isn't any evidence, Dawn (this is "talking" in the strict sense, using vocal chords). We're not saying that there is (maybe you need to read Radz's comment yet again if you think this is his position). To my knowledge no dead person has ever manipulated air using their vocal chords to speak while dead. We're not asserting that they can. We're not even asserting that it has ever happened. I'm not even asserting that I personally think it's possible. What I am saying is that billions of dead people not talking DOES NOT BY ITSELF ENSURE that it's impossible. It does not PROVE it. What at least I have been hoping for is a very simple response from you to the specific point, either: A. Okay, I agree with you that billions of dead people not talking doesn't by itself PROVE that it can't happen. B. No, you're wrong. Billions of dead people not talking DOES prove that it cannot ever happen. So which is it? A or B?
You fellas always chastize the believer on this web site because you say they dont provide the evidence in these situations. I have. Now quit with the Sophistry BS and provide the evidence please. You cant have it both ways. You either believe the stories the people tell or you dont, choose a side and quit riding the fence. Quit using WHAT THEY SAY OR BELIEVE as a response or quit refering to them at all. All this talk about my inability to do this or that is an obvious fact that, you cannot provide the evidence to the contrary. I have been doing this long enough to recognize crap when I see it. Maybe RAZD needs to get with PurpleYoulo and figure out what actual evidence is in response to an argument. Now put that in your Smipe and Poke it. I fail to see how this little rant really relates to what you and I were talking about, but okay.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024