Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The use of logic in establishing truths
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 10 of 171 (438569)
12-05-2007 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dawn Bertot
12-05-2007 10:14 AM


For example, DB's "dead men tell no tales" axiom. It is accepted as true because corpses do not speak (through their vocal cords, like DB insists). However, it can be falsified. It hasn't been, yet, but it can be and it is accepted as true because of the constant validity.
Dawn, the above statement is correct. As far as we know, no one has ever seen a corpse (=here dead person) communicate information by talking. But the hypothesis that dead people cannot talk can be falsified. All it requires is a dead person actually talking. You can assert that it is impossible, and you can believe that it's impossible to the core of your being, but you cannot prove that it is. Just because every person who has ever died has failed to talk after death does not prove that it is impossible. What it does is allow us to predict with such certainty that it won't happen that we all come to agree that it's impossible. But all of those occurrences of people not talking after death (the data) do not themselves ensure that no corpse will ever talk. The data themselves do not have any power to affect the next dead person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-05-2007 10:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-05-2007 5:23 PM JB1740 has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 37 of 171 (438791)
12-06-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dawn Bertot
12-05-2007 5:23 PM


I wrote:
Dawn, the above statement is correct. As far as we know, no one has ever seen a corpse (=here dead person) communicate information by talking. But the hypothesis that dead people cannot talk can be falsified. All it requires is a dead person actually talking. You can assert that it is impossible, and you can believe that it's impossible to the core of your being, but you cannot prove that it is. Just because every person who has ever died has failed to talk after death does not prove that it is impossible. What it does is allow us to predict with such certainty that it won't happen that we all come to agree that it's impossible. But all of those occurrences of people not talking after death (the data) do not themselves ensure that no corpse will ever talk. The data themselves do not have any power to affect the next dead person.
Dawn chuckled:
I 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
Razd restated:
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.
Dawn replied to Razd:
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
But Dawn, although you have been sort of glib in dismissing my statement and Razd's excellent paraphrasing thereof, you haven't actually addressed it. Simply once again asserting your point doesn't weaken the statement.
And where the heck are you getting 3 billion years? Are you trying to insist that we have 3 billion years of data of dead people not talking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-05-2007 5:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 11:35 AM JB1740 has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 43 of 171 (438836)
12-06-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 11:35 AM


Again, quit quibbling about my answers and provide the evidence that demonstrates that dead men talk.
Dawn, we're not questioning your observation that dead men don't talk. What we're doing is questioning your assertion that the observation proves unequivocally that dead men can never talk. The observation doesn't PROVE it. That several billion dead people who have come before us never talked does not ENSURE that the next person who dies won't be able to speak after death. It simply does not. It predicts it...with almost absolute certainly, but not WITH absolute certainty. Is it so unlikely as to make the whole discussion ridiculous? Yes. Can science consider it impossible given what we know of the world? Almost certainly. Do either of these last two sentences, which are observations, ENSURE an outcome for the next dead person? No.

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

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 44 of 171 (438837)
12-06-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 11:35 AM


The demonstratable fact and the direct evidence that dead people talk to no one is not assertion or quibbling.
And if you pay attention you'll note that I didn't say that it was.
And what the heck did you mean by 3 billion years?

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

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 86 of 171 (439055)
12-07-2007 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Observation/Truth
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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 9:38 AM JB1740 has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 87 of 171 (439056)
12-07-2007 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Observation/Truth
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 9:11 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 8:55 AM JB1740 has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 90 of 171 (439064)
12-07-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 8:55 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 8:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 9:43 AM JB1740 has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 92 of 171 (439068)
12-07-2007 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
12-07-2007 9:20 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
The reason you're getting an argument about something that seems so self-evident to you is that most of the people here are approaching this from a scientific perspective, and within science there is almost nothing that is axiomatic. The principle of tentativity allows no other conclusion. The only axioms in science are those that actually define science, such as its focus on the natural world, or the accepted belief that physical laws apply equally throughout all space and time (and some scientists believe this isn't necessarily true).
Percy, well said.
And Dawn, the reason we're harping so hard on this particular point is that it directly illustrates how natural science views and deals with the world and thus points right back at the question of whether or not ID qualifies as something that can be held up as an alternative to the ToE, which is how this whole thing ultimately started.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 10:21 AM JB1740 has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 97 of 171 (439078)
12-07-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by LucyTheApe
12-07-2007 9:38 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
?please explain!
1. First, I admit I assume that Dawn really meant everywhere and all the time. That statement is obviously incorrect. Gravity is not the same everywhere even in our little solar system (indeed not even everywhere on the earth).
2. If we look at Dawn's actual wording "all the time," the statement is still incorrect. Even if we restrict our view just to the Earth, gravity isn't a constant force over time because (for one reason) the Earth's mass isn't constant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 9:38 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 12:03 PM JB1740 has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 99 of 171 (439081)
12-07-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 9:43 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
It is simply evassive and almost foolishness to sit there and contend that because it hasnt happened after 1 to 3 billon years, that we might be expected to.
Your take on language is very curious, Dawn. I presume you're still talking about dead people? I never said that just because it hasn't happened, that we can expect it to. Read what I wrote. I said that it doesn't PROVE it according to science. No C. Please choose: A or B. AND WHERE DO YOU KEEP GETTING 3 BILLION YEARS?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 9:43 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 105 of 171 (439097)
12-07-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 10:21 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
Well said, but that has been the point all along, that if you are going to limit the word science to mean only your definiton of science, then of course from your perspective nothing else will be science or evidence.
It isn't my definition of science, Dawn. As has been repeatedly observed here, science moved away from a logic-only-based view of the world. If you want it to regress, then you need to show WHY we need to abandon our insistence on evidence. Show us how your view of science works better than what we're already doing.
How does your version of science explain the morphology of Archaeopteryx better than mine?
Now without rehearsing all of Modulous, SilentH, RAZDs and PaulKs very eloquent definitions of science, they simply do not say that those are the only ways to gather Facts, as I have demonstrated to the contrary.
There seems to be pretty serious disagreement that you succeeded in demonstrating this.
You can of course demonstrate the science of ID outside of your very narrow and monopolized definition of science by the simple definiton and explanation of an axiom and the application of logic directed twords axioms.
This is a can of worms
If it is true (as you assert) that Facts are not really facts even after we discover them.
I asserted nothing of the sort. Facts are observations with error. That is what I asserted.
Then it would follow that nothing that yopu provide from the so-called scientific method is reliable or dependable either.
That might follow from your gross mischaracterization of what I supposedly asserted, but it makes little sense in the real world. The scientific method works just fine; you utilize the results of it working every day.
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,
That's false. I don't think I gave you any definitions and my explanations do not support ID as science.
so either are valid or neither are valid, you cant have it both ways. Or have it one way for you and another for us. It is science just not your definition of science.
It doesn't appear to be anyone's definition of science, but okay.
Oh crap here we go again.
Sigh...probably.

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

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 109 of 171 (439125)
12-07-2007 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by LucyTheApe
12-07-2007 12:03 PM


Re: Observation/Truth
It's a universal constant.
I was talking about the Force of Gravity, which is what physics tends to refer to with respect to the word Gravity. I wasn't talking about the mathematical constant because Dawn used the words
principle of Gravity
which I equated to be referring to the force, since I don't take a mathematical constant to be the same as a principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 12:03 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 110 of 171 (439127)
12-07-2007 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
12-07-2007 12:16 PM


Re: Observation/Truth
or in short (as usual), what Percy said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 12-07-2007 12:16 PM Percy has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 115 of 171 (439177)
12-07-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by LucyTheApe
12-07-2007 1:48 PM


Re: Observation/Truth
I think I know what JB means. I.e. that if he dangled from a spring on the north pole and measured the stretch he would get a different measurement if he dangled from the same spring
on the equator. My point was that gravity is universal and applies the same no matter where you are and hence F = GMm/r^2.
I'm not really sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing here. The gravitational constant is assumed to be universal...I think we agree on that. I'm not sure what you mean that it applies the same no matter where you are. The force of gravity changes. In your formula above, M, m, and r are all variables (e.g., gravity changes depending on your elevation).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 1:48 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 166 of 171 (440057)
12-11-2007 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by LucyTheApe
12-11-2007 11:09 AM


Re: Topic Drift Alert!
My even less limited understanding of ToE is that giraffes have long necks so that they can reach higher up in the trees and elephants have long trunks so they don't have to bend down to drink.
No.
The long neck of the giraffe tends to get selected for because it gives the critter an advantage in reaching up higher in the trees (and thus allowing it to exploit foliage that other animals might not be able to access). Giraffes don't have the long necks SO that they can reach (i.e., the longer necks didn't come about IN ORDER TO facilitate their browsing--the necks gave them an advantage for browsing).
PS, I'm still trying to figure out if I agree or disagree with your last post on gravity in the other thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-11-2007 11:09 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-11-2007 10:52 PM JB1740 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