|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The use of logic in establishing truths | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dawn Bertot replying to JB1740 writes: 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. 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. So just like the Discovery Institute, is it your position that science should be redefined to include the supernatural? That would explain a lot about why you're arguing as you are. We're not using some special definition of science. Our definition of science is the same one employed by scientists everywhere around the globe of all races and religions. Science is natural, falsifiable, replicable, predictive, with the goal of building theoretical frameworks of understanding around bodies of evidence.
If it is true (as you assert) that Facts are not really facts even after we discover them. Then it would follow that nothing that yopu provide from the so-called scientific method is reliable or dependable either. You're misunderstanding the principle of tentativity. The fact that no knowledge is certain doesn't mean we possess no knowledge. But in science no knowledge or theory approaches 100% certainty. There are no axioms (or at least very few axioms) within science. But scientific knowledge in which we are able to establish great confidence through experimentation that verifies theoretical predictions becomes accepted. It never becomes established as true beyond doubt. That would never happen in science. Tentativity requires that nothing ever be accepted as 100% certain within science. That you misunderstand science and logic and axioms is made clear by your lengthy exercise attempting to elevate the "Dead men tell no tales" folk saying to an incontrovertibly true scientific axiom. Have you ever even heard of a scientific axiom? We have a gravitational theory, not a gravitational axiom. We have Einstein's theory of relativity, not Einstein's axiom of relativity. We have Boyle's Law and thermodynamic laws, not Boyle's axiom or thermodynamic axioms. What you're attempting to do is so wrong in so many ways its no wonder that the responses are spread all over the map. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
...Gravity is not the same everywhere even in our little solar system (indeed not even everywhere on the earth). G = 6.672*10 ^ -11 Nm^2/kg^2 It's a universal constant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
When JB says gravity he means the force of the gravitation field, which of course varies widely.
When you say gravity you mean the gravitational constant, which is considered a universal constant. You both seem to be making accurate statements that neither of you should be arguing with. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5973 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5973 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
or in short (as usual), what Percy said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Natural Scientists will never Mathematics simply doesn't apply. It's deductive, axiomatic, and absolute. Mathematicians are not scientists; they're mathematicians. (Or, at worst, philosophers. I give most mathematicians more credit than that.)hijack science. quote: Not while my blood is still warm! Anyway Dawn "so he's dead (as long as he's not jesus)" I'll agree if no-one else does that he's not "going to tell tales". What was your point because this has been dragging on for so long your just giving everyone more reason to take the piss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Ok fellas, this is way off track
When JB says gravity he means the force of the gravitation field, which of course varies widely.
Only with respect to the inverse square of the distance from the center of gravity. 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 springon the equator. My point was that gravity is universal and applies the same no matter where you are and hence F = GMm/r^2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Not while my blood is still warm! Not what? I don't see anything in my post that you've refuted with the dictionary. Mathematics is mathematics, not science.
What was your point because this has been dragging on for so long your just giving everyone more reason to take the piss. My point was Euclid's fifth postulate; it's an axiom that is accepted not because its true or false; you choose whether or accept it or not to determine what kind of geometry you'll be doing. It's like all axioms in that regard. They form the basis of formal systems, but moreover, they're selected to form the basis of formal systems, for purposes of argument. They may or may not be true statements about the world we inhabit, but their acceptance as axiomatic has almost nothing to do with their truth. They're assumed to be true, without justification, except insofar as they're justified by how useful or interesting a formal system they establish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Lucy writes: My point was that gravity is universal and applies the same no matter where you are and hence F = GMm/r^2. Aren't M and m relativistic? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5973 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Ringo writes: There's the keyword again: "granted". Who granted it? In this sense it's not given. It's taken.
"Taken for granted" doesn't mean one person like Dawn Bertot assumed it. It means there's a consensus. Not necessarily if I understand you correctly. I of the minority here take some things for granted as in axiomatic which you may not. For example, I've familiarized myself with such things as the Biblical prophecies, phenominal personal experience and such over the past 62 years since my conversion to the extent that I take the fact that God exists for granted as in axiomatic. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk 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. Some people think that is self evident. Using only logic you cannot tell their self-evident truth from yours. Using the testing against evidence you cannot demonstrate that it is always false. Therefore your statement is not a self-evident truth by logic alone or through scientific testing.
Now quit with the Sophistry BS and provide the evidence please. You cant have it both ways. Let me put it to you this way: every time you deny that the statement "dead men tell no tales" cannot be demonstrated to be 100% absolutely and positively true, you confirm my statement that you cannot get everybody to agree on a single thing being true.
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. But you fail to understand that we do not need to actually demonstrate that your argument is false to show that it is not 100% absolutely and positively true - all we have to show is that it can be logically questioned, that the truth is not self-evident in the statement, and that HAS been done by presenting evidence of people who would not see your statement as necessarily true. You have argued that you can derive fact by logic alone: you have failed to demonstrate that. You actually admit that failure by demanding some objective evidence.
Maybe RAZD needs to get with PurpleYoulo and figure out what actual evidence is in response to an argument. Keep disagreeing - all you do is confirm my statement that you can't get everyone to agree on a truth. But again, there is an easy alternative for you: there must be some other truth you can provide as an example, unless the only one is that "dead men tell no tales" which is not much to build a theology on. 1+1=2? Depends on our agreement on the definition of '1' and '2' ... which is a statement of the assumptions made of what they mean. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clarity Edited by RAZD, : always Edited by RAZD, : clarity 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: I take the fact that God exists for granted as in axiomatic. You're mixing terms. A lot of people "take it for granted" that God exists - a lot of them are evolutionists and big-bangists. But, as people are beating their head sgainst the wall trying to explain, that isn't axiomatic even to people who "take it for granted". Taking for granted that God exists in a general sense is not the same as it being axiomatic in a specific sense. Axiomatic (again ) requires an agreement for the purpose of discussion.
I of the minority here take some things for granted as in axiomatic which you may not. As far as that goes, I consider myself a minority of one. You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts and you're not entitled to your own axioms. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I understand what RAZD is saying, its just that, at some point you need to acquiesce and acknowledge the OBVIOUS and accept that which is clearly demonstratable. Why? Your only argument left is that we must agree with you, not because your argument is valid but because you think so. If this statement is true, then at some point you also need to "acquiesce and acknowledge the OBVIOUS and accept that which is clearly demonstratable.(sic)" If you don't think you need to do so then your argument is just plain wrong if not silly and self serving.
RAZDs simple proposition and cahallenge to me was provide an axiom, the truth of which is INCONTROVERTIBLE. I provided that in this axiom. And it clearly is not "INCONTROVERTIBLE" (spelled it right that time - you're learning something?).
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. But you don't know for sure and you cannot absolutely prove that it never has happened. You are assuming that what you believe is true has not happened. Some people claim that the story of Lazarus in the bible is evidence of an actual was dead man actually talking. There are other stories as well, from almost every corner of the globe -- how can there be such evidence without a grain of truth? Can you really claim you KNOW?
The answer is (C) that this is an axiom of the highest order. It is clear proof (that which you fellas are always seeking) that if the EVIDENCE demonstrates to the contrary for this long a period of time, its a good axiomatic TRUTH to move forward with. This is clearly muddy thinking. You cannot state your premises clearly, nor provide demonstration of their validity. Try it - fill in the blank:
Premise 1: It should be easy to state it clearly if you are familiar with logic.
Now to be reasonable and completely honest this is and does constitute proof by any strech of the imagination. Again, your statement of the veracity of a statement is not evidence of it, nor is your record of accurate use of words one to rely on, nor is your ability to make a valid (to say nothing of a sound) logical argument demonstrated. Your favorite argument is the logical fallacy of incredulity - incredulity that anyone has the gall to disagree with you.
It is proof as much as anyone can have proof and therefore is PROOF. While I agree that it is as much proof as any argument can have, I don't agree that it is absolute proof: it rests on assumptions. Just because no argument can do better does not mean that it suddenly becomes true either. Once again you have an invalid logical structure here, a missing premise (or are you just assuming that we will know what you mean?). 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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You really don't have a clue do you?
Yes I do and I am still waiting for it.Do you even know what evidence means? What can i say? You are basically redefining the meaning of "dead" so that no example can ever debunk your idea. That is called moving the goalposts. Actually, what we are talking about - and what you need to be talking about - is the evidence that the statement is not a self-evident truth, not the evidence for whether or not it actually IS true. Why? Because that is the evidence that applies to your argument. What you are doing is confusing the evidence that the statement IS true with the evidence that the truth is self-evident from the statement alone. Lots of true statements appear false and lots of false statements appear true, and their truth or falseness has nothing to do with whether the statement appears true or false just from the statement itself. Your argument is that you can derive "FACT in reality" from logic alone, and to do this you must start with 100% absolute and positive true premises - not just axioms or self-evident truths that are assumed to be true for the sake of an argument. If you have to assume a truth then you can only end up with a tentative conclusion -- it is tentatively true only so long as the premises remain true (iff* the structure is valid). To do this with logic alone all you have are the statements themselves, no evidence of an objective external reality, and the evidence of whether or not everyone would see they are true from the evidence of the statement alone (that is what self-evident means yes?) So every piece of evidence, from mythology to religion to anecdote to future possibilities, that actually demonstrates that there are people who will not see this statement as being true shows that it is NOT self evident to them -- BY DEFINITION. Therefore your premise is falsified - the one that there are self-evident truths or axioms that are true without being assumed to be true for the sake of an argument. Logic alone does not allow you to conclude that axioms or self-evident truths are anything BUT statements that are assumed to be true for the sake of the argument.
How do redefine the word dead? If a dead person gets up and talks to you , then they are not dead. How indeed. You seem to have that ability mastered. Zombie - Wikipedia
quote: If you show me a Zombie that is both dead and alive at the same time, I will believe you. Fair enough. Heck if you can even show me a dead Zombie talking, Ill believe. As you can see though, Im not worried that this is going to happen. The point is not whether the statement itself is actually true - that is actually irrelevant to the argument in question - but whether the statement's truth is self evident from the statement alone.
Its funny here, I almost sound like the skeptic now and you guys sound like the believers. Theres an irony for you. No, you still sound like someone who has made up their mind regardless of the evidence to the contrary. If you were a skeptic you would be much more careful - tentative - in your claims of proof and invented fact. Enjoy. * - where iff is the logic convention for "if and only if" Edited by RAZD, : the rest of the argument Edited by RAZD, : clarity 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024