Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The use of logic in establishing truths
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 20 of 171 (438696)
12-05-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
12-05-2007 6:27 PM


Re: Observation/Truth
Buzsaw writes:
Razd writes:...
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 12-05-2007 6:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 12-06-2007 12:31 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 34 of 171 (438767)
12-06-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dawn Bertot
12-05-2007 10:54 PM


DB 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.
So here are the three, from the other thread:
DB writes:
Now, narrow it down. There are only three LOGICAL possibilites as to how all things are here. (If you can think of another please let me know). They created themselves, they always exsisted or something created them. The mere fact that you cannot hypothesis, contemplate or theorize another is indicative of the truth in those premises of this argument. There are also no other Premises to choose from. Now regardless of the conclusion you choose a designer is the possibility of one of these choices.
How all things are here:
1)They created themselves
2)they always existed
3)something created them.
I can rule out the first one, on the basis that some things didn't create themselves (I didn't create myself, neither did this computer), and some things are part of "all things".
I can rule out the second one, on the basis that both myself and the computer have not always existed, and we are part of "all things".
I can rule out the third one, on the basis that "something" is part of "all things", and therefore it's a logical contradiction.
I think your problem here is your sloppy use of language, Dawn.
Did you mean "How the universe came into existence" rather than "how all things are here"??
Now lets narrow it down further, there are only two possibilites of how life on this planet occured, it evolved, it was created or it was designed to evolve, there are no others and these are not the premises I choose, they are the only ones. You establish this by the SCIENCE OF LOGIC, THROUGH THE DECUCTIVE REASOING PROCESS. It is scientific by definition.. you must show that it is not, not by decrying what you believe science is, but by DEFINITION. You must show that my conclusions that I have drawn are INVALID, NOT THAT YOU JUST DONT SEE THEM AS VALID.
How life occured on this planet:
1) It evolved
2) It was created or it was designed to evolve
Abiogenesis is a possibility for "how life occurred on this planet" that you don't seem to have mentioned here.
I think that you need to be much more precise with language if you want to talk about something like logic, Dawn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-05-2007 10:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 11:55 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 45 of 171 (438850)
12-06-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 11:35 AM


The Point You're Missing
DawnB writes:
.....the conclusion of which should be here is the direct evidence that shows why dead men dont talk. Just say you are licked and we can move on.
But it's you who's just licked yourself. The common conclusion that dead men don't talk is arrived at by evidence, the result of observation. It has nothing to do with reaching conclusions by sheer logic alone.
From accumulated human experience and observation, we know that one of the symptoms of being dead is that corpses can no longer hold conversations. Another such symptom is that they start to smell after a while.
I think that you want to say something about intelligent design like:
"Either life on earth was designed, or it wasn't."
That's a kind of truism, and it in no way makes the case for I.D. scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 11:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 47 of 171 (438861)
12-06-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 11:55 AM


Since things do exist, perhaps you would like to attempt a souce outside the three that have been offered. Its is an axiom of the highest order, even if you are not satisfied with the language or wording. Your being evassive Blugenes.
I'm not being evasive, I'm just trying to get you to be more careful with your English, so we can be sure of what you're talking about.
For example, once again:
DB writes:
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 existence is eternal,created all things.
In English, that's nonsense, because it reads as if the 'Something or Someone whose existence is eternal' is not part of 'all things'.
However, I think I know what you mean.
Your fourth alternative is that everything just came into existence.
So:
1)They created themselves
2)they always existed
3)something created them.
4)everything just came into existence with no creating, including self-creating, required, and no eternal existence required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 11:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 3:18 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 50 of 171 (438880)
12-06-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
12-06-2007 12:31 PM


Blind Faith isn't built on logic
Buzsaw writes:
bluegenes writes:
....You're also confusing "logic" with "faith" when you talk about your views on the Bible and the flood.
How so must logic be applied only outside of the Biblical record? That makes no sense to me.
What I meant was that there's nothing logical about having faith in the literal truth of Jewish creation mythology in the first place. There are many other creation mythologies, as you know, and you could choose to have an arbitrary faith in the veracity of any of them, but none of them are believed in due to logical thought processes.
If you disagree, you can describe the train of logical thought that led you to disbelieve in Hindu mythology, and to believe in Jewish mythology.
Not at all. My point was that what is widely programmed into the masses should be open to logical reasoning pertaining to other data. The same goes with religion.
If something is programmed into the masses, it will be something for which there's no evidence (like all religious beliefs, for example).
Don't confuse teaching people stuff for which there is evidence with such programming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 12-06-2007 12:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 58 of 171 (438943)
12-06-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 3:18 PM


Dawn B writes:
bluegenes writes:
4)everything just came into existence with no creating, including self-creating, required, and no eternal existence required.
And of course, "Just came into existence", is the exact same as saying the created themselves.",
Not in the English language, it isn't. For example, I certainly came into existence, and I certainly didn't create myself.
Or that they came from another source, which just pushes the process back further to the Creator.. Your wasring you time, its been tried better than you and I. Its anxiom of the highest order.
What creator? If your creator can exist without being created, so, my child, can anything else. That's logic for you.

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 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 8:52 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 80 of 171 (439038)
12-07-2007 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 8:52 PM


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:
bluegenes:
But it's you who's just licked yourself. The common conclusion that dead men don't talk is arrived at by evidence, the result of observation. It has nothing to do with reaching conclusions by sheer logic alone.
From accumulated human experience and observation, we know that one of the symptoms of being dead is that corpses can no longer hold conversations. Another such symptom is that they start to smell after a while.
I think that you want to say something about intelligent design like:
"Either life on earth was designed, or it wasn't."
That's a kind of truism, and it in no way makes the case for I.D. scientific.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 8:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2007 7:49 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 85 of 171 (439052)
12-07-2007 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
12-07-2007 7:29 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2007 7:29 AM RAZD has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 96 of 171 (439077)
12-07-2007 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
12-07-2007 9:20 AM


Half summary for the 100 post mark..!
Percy writes:
Let me try to restate our objection to the "Dead men tell no tales" issue very succinctly.
There's a funny side to this. DB is taking "Dead men tell no tales" in a very literal sense as in "corpses don't speak using their brains and vocal chords". What's funny about that is that scientists would agree that this observation could be taken as virtual fact based on empirical evidence. It has nothing to do with coming to conclusions based on logic alone.
But it's DB who's claiming the logic point, so the science types, quite correctly, are pointing out that logically it cannot be claimed as a 100% incontrovertible fact, because nothing really can.
(The fact that in a non-DB sense, linguistically, dead men can tell us tales in the same way that archaeological sites can, just adds to the confusion).
I think that where DB is heading, and why the "dead men" and "Spock" red herrings should be put aside, is that he wants to say that because intelligent design is a possibility that can't be ruled out, then that makes it science, which is why some of us are mentioning the "E" word, evidence, loudly.
If I'm right, then we need to explain that something being possible, alone, does not make for a scientific theory, or even arguably a hypothesis, in the way that scientists understand the word.
The dead men and star trek examples that Dawn gave just didn't happen to be very good examples. Which is why I've suggested a truism like:
"Either life on earth involves interventionist intelligent design or it doesn't" as perhaps a better "axiom" for his/her purposes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 12-07-2007 9:20 AM Percy has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 104 of 171 (439095)
12-07-2007 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 10:21 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
DB writes:
In other words, the way I am establishing the validity of ID is as valid a method as yours according to your own definitions and explanations, so either are valid or neither are valid, you cant have it both ways.
What you seem to be talking about is the possibility of I.D.
Establishing the possibility of I.D. isn't necessary, as no-one thinks it's impossible.
But its validity as a scientific theory requires evidence. There's nothing wrong in science in proposing anything.
I can propose that the fairies come out at night and help to pollinate flowers. It's not impossible, and it can't be disproved. But scientists wouldn't accept it as a valid theory because I have no evidence for it.
That puts it in the same position as I.D.
So you, as an I.D. advocate, and I, as a pollinating fairies advocate, are in the same situation in relation to science.
Life's tough for those without evidence, isn't it?
Edited by bluegenes, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 10:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 129 of 171 (439303)
12-08-2007 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by LucyTheApe
12-08-2007 1:32 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
LucyTheHalfApe writes:
I claim that ID requires at least one instance of a Designer and the
ToE requires at least one, random mutation.
Both fail miserably in being axiomatic.
That's an original angle, Lucy, but as Crashfrog has pointed out, random mutations aren't an axiom, but a conclusion based on observation. The I.D.ers will claim the same for their designer(s), and in order to make the claim that I.D. is science, they have to.
And I further claim that on this basis neither ID or the ToE can be proved on the basis of Logic alone.
I agree entirely.
I don't know if I'd use the word "prove", though.
They require evidence in order to become theories, and lots of evidence in order to become strong theories. ToE has succeeded on both counts, but I.D. seems destined to remain an expression of the desires of its advocates, as the quantity of evidence is stuck at absolute zero.
Logic is one of the tools of science, but it gets nowhere on its own.
But try telling DB that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-08-2007 1:32 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 130 of 171 (439306)
12-08-2007 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by LucyTheApe
12-08-2007 3:42 AM


Lucy's smokescreen
quote:
Random: 1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern.
Lucy writes:
So what does random mutation mean, a smoke screen?
quote:
Smoke screen: 1. A mass of dense artificial smoke used to conceal military areas or operations from an enemy.
2. An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions.
Obviously not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-08-2007 3:42 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 132 of 171 (439308)
12-08-2007 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by LucyTheApe
12-08-2007 7:04 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
LucyTheDictionarylessApe writes:
....is actually random(without cause)?
Why do you want "random" to mean "without cause"? It means without definite aim, reason, or pattern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-08-2007 7:04 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-08-2007 9:50 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 139 of 171 (439324)
12-08-2007 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by LucyTheApe
12-08-2007 9:50 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
LucyAustralopithecusAustralianus writes:
because if we have a cause then we can make a machine
not having a cause makes no sense(to me).
Ah well, I guess it's tough for an Australopithecus to think too much in the abstract. Random doesn't mean uncaused.
Lightning strikes at random, but it has a cause. Some things are more likely to be struck than others, and some parts of the genome are more prone to mutation than others. But lightning and mutations both strike without pattern.
We're off topic, so I'll add that we know this through observation, not by logic alone, in a pretense at being on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-08-2007 9:50 AM LucyTheApe 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