Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,042 Year: 5,299/9,624 Month: 324/323 Week: 168/160 Day: 4/38 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do science and religion have rights to some "explanatory space"?
erikp
Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 16 of 37 (491871)
12-23-2008 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
12-23-2008 7:14 AM


Re: Confusing terminology
>>> No, it does not. Systems that lack the richness required to construct the representations needed for the proof are unaffected by the Theorem.
Such systems are too simple to be useful. Do you know of any scientific theorem which is so simple that it would be unaffected?
>>> No. The scientific method says that unfalsifiable statements should be binned.
It says that unfalsifiable statements are not part of science. And I agree with that.
But then again, the beginning of the universe is also unfalsifiable, as what happened at that point in time, cannot be contradicted by future facts. This is a problem, because science does conjecture theories about it.
>>> No, only statements shown to be very close to the truth (i.e. we have grounds for thinking that they will be true in almost every case, even if there may be unforseen cases where they are not) are taken as true.
These statements are not "very close to the truth". They will remain unproven and false, until they are finally proven false [Popper].
Anyway, it is not because a statement is hard to disprove, that the statement is true. It is still false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2008 7:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2008 8:33 AM erikp has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 17 of 37 (491872)
12-23-2008 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by erikp
12-23-2008 8:18 AM


Re: Confusing terminology
quote:
Such systems are too simple to be useful. Do you know of any scientific theorem which is so simple that it would be unaffected?
I don't know of even one that WOULD definitely be affected. Can you give me an example and show how Gdel's proof applies ?
quote:
It says that unfalsifiable statements are not part of science. And I agree with that.
So we are agreed that science does NOT accept that every statement that cannot be proven false is true.
quote:
These statements are not "very close to the truth". They will remain unproven and false, until they are finally proven false [Popper].
A false statement may be "very close to the truth". Science aims for continuous improvement, getting closer and closer to the truth. That indeed is the only reason for replacing a theory - it is closer to the truth.
quote:
Anyway, it is not because a statement is hard to disprove, that the statement is true. It is still false.
You seem to be confusing our positions. You state that statements that cannot be falsified must be accepted as true. I don't demand that falsification should be difficult in principle - just the opposite. The difficulty in falsifying the statement should come from it's being true or close to the truth. I take a view close to Popper's - that we should accept theories that survive serious attempts at falsification. Odd that you seem to disagree, given that you invoke his name so often.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by erikp, posted 12-23-2008 8:18 AM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 3:30 AM PaulK has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 18 of 37 (491885)
12-23-2008 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by erikp
12-23-2008 5:29 AM


A Serious Misunderstanding of the Scientific Method
Hi erikp and welcome to the forum,
quote:
Science and religion do not overlap and may not overlap.
That would be nice, I agree. Unfortunately, religion has always delved into matters that are better left to the scientific method and it continues to do so.
quote:
Only observations from reality have the status: proven true.
I disagree somewhat. How do we know that the observer is doing his job properly? Nonetheless, I would say that observations are as close as we can ever practically get to "proven true", so this is a very small point. Once something has been reliably and repeatedly observed, it is reasonable to say that it is proven true.
quote:
If a scientific theorem has the status "proven", it means that it does not cover any possible future observations. That would simply make the scientific theorem useless for any practical purpose.
I agree with the first sentence, but it does not describe the scientific method as it is practised. The second sentence is just plain wrong.
No scientific theory is ever considered "proven". One might describe an observation as proven, but not the theory that underlies it. Science holds all theories as tentative explanations, pending potential future correction. This is precisely because of the problems that you describe; potential for future falsification.
To suggest that a theory must be tentative is only sensible. To then suggest that because of this, no theory can ever be of practical use is absurd. The Theory of General Relativity is open to future falsification, yet it is used very successfully in Global Positioning Systems. In what way is this not practical? The germ theory of disease is subject to falsification, yet it has saved millions of lives and improved standards of living worldwide. In what way is this not practical?
quote:
Popper and Gdel also demonstrate that every scientific theorem that is applicable to an unending stream of future observations, will eventually prove to be false. There are --always-- observations possible that will sooner or later contradict the theorem. The status of every scientific theorem currently in use is simply: false (but hard to prove so).
(Emphasis mine.)
First of all, all theories are subject to future falsification, every last one of them, including ones we haven't thought of yet. No scientific theory is considered "case closed" or "proven". Thus, the phrase "every scientific theorem that is applicable to an unending stream of future observations" can be effectively shortened to "every scientific theorem".
Throughout your exchange with PaulK, you have repeatedly claimed that your argument is directly taken from Popper and Gdel. Now, I admit to being only marginally familiar with Popper's work and I am pretty much unfamiliar with Gdel. I am nonetheless sceptical that they really say quite what you seem to think they do.
Perhaps you could cite cases where they make the argument you claim they do, especially with regard to the bolded sections above.
quote:
The only theorems that can be true, are theorems for which it is impossible to make observations.
Look, I'm assuming that neither of us is a solipsist, so we can both agree that there is an objective reality that exists regardless of our attempts to understand it, right? A theory that accurately describes reality would be correct. Scientific theories attempt to describe observed reality as accurately as is possible, whilst still acknowledging the possibility that they are wrong or incomplete (tentativity). Observation is the foundation of this approach.
A theory for which no observation can be made is not a theory. It is, at best, just an idle notion.
quote:
The status of such theorem would be: unproven true.
Why? You don't say, you merely assert that this is the case. Given that it is, by definition, unprovable, I would say that it is impossible to justify calling it true. How would you know?
By your logic the following statement is true; "We are being watched by the invisible and undetectable eyes of the machine elves from the other side."
You can't observe the machine elves, so they can't be proved. Thus, machine elf theory is true.
Do you see how silly this is?
quote:
Science is therefore false, but hard to prove so; but sooner or later every scientific statement will turn out to be an error [Popper, Gdel].
Again, I would be very interested to see exactly where Messrs Popper and Gdel claim this.
quote:
Religion, however, is true, but impossible to prove so.
Two contradictory unprovable statements could not both be true. To regard two such statements as both being true is to embrace absurdity. In the real world, two mutually contradictory statements cannot, by definition, both be true. In your world, they both have to be considered be true.
Seriously, do you not see how silly this is?
Be honest. Do you actually possess the ability to consciously believe two mutually contradictory statements at once? I sure don't, nor would I want to.
quote:
In my impression, both the Bible and the Koran, manage to stay clear of making unproven false statements (that is, scientific statements) by staying clear of phrasing statements that could be contradicted by future observations.
Oh really? From Matthew 13;
13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds
The mustard seed is not the smallest seed. It's just not. There are poppy seeds in my kitchen that are smaller. The smallest seeds are, I believe, those of orchids, which cannot be seen with the naked eye. This is a falsifiable claim and it has been falsified. By your standards, that means that Jesus' parable was not religious.
Of course the parable is religious , as is the source, the New Testament.
quote:
Religion may only contain proven true (facts, observations) and unproven/unprovable true statements (religious imperatives).
Unfortunately, religion stubbornly hangs on to falsified notions. They litter the Bible. One need read no further than Genesis 1:2 to find an entirely falsified notion, yet Genesis must be considered religious under any sensible definition.
I think that you have slightly misunderstood how science and especially tentativity work. You have taken this misunderstanding and run with it, far in the wrong direction and it has led you to some rather strange conclusions.
I think a good start for you in pursuing this would be to provide evidence that Popper and Gdel really say what you think they do. Personally, I have my doubts.
Mutate and Survive.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by erikp, posted 12-23-2008 5:29 AM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 9:04 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2211 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 37 (491887)
12-23-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by erikp
12-23-2008 5:29 AM


Logic, eh?
Science is therefore false, but hard to prove so; but sooner or later every scientific statement will turn out to be an error [Popper, Gdel]. Religion, however, is true, but impossible to prove so.
Therefore, as long as religious statements (theorems) are phrased as such that they impossibly be contradicted by future observations, the statements -- but also their antithesis -- must be considered to be true, though unproven. Any religious statement, however, that could be contradicted by future observations, is not a valid religious statement.
In my impression, both the Bible and the Koran, manage to stay clear of making unproven false statements (that is, scientific statements) by staying clear of phrasing statements that could be contradicted by future observations.
Religion may only contain proven true (facts, observations) and unproven/unprovable true statements (religious imperatives).
[b]
[color=red]
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.[/b][/color]
Murphy's technology laws
Frankly, you're spouting nonsense. Perhaps its logical, but it still amounts to nothing more than nonsense.
This serves as a prime example of why real scientists want to have nothing to do with philosophers, and, although they receive a Doctor of Philosophy degree, they now shun philosophers and the meaningless drivel they produce.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by erikp, posted 12-23-2008 5:29 AM erikp has not replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 20 of 37 (491905)
12-24-2008 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
12-23-2008 8:33 AM


Re: Confusing terminology
>> Such systems are too simple to be useful. Do you know of any scientific theorem which is so simple that it would be unaffected?
>>>> I don't know of even one that WOULD definitely be affected. Can you give me an example and show how Gdel's proof applies ?
For Gdel's proof to apply, it must be possible to represent the statements in the theory with natural numbers. Therefore, any theory that has a digital representation is already represented with natural numbers. Any theory, for which the statements can be represented on a computer, satisfies this criterion.
Now, instead of using the axiomatic reduction of the statement as proof, we define its collection of all possible observations as proof. Each potential observation can be represented as a number too. The Gdel number for the proof is then the number representing its collection of possible observations (Y) for statement (X).
We must therefore show that for any such given statement X, the number Y (its proof) does not exist. That would prove that all such statements X are false.
This is what Popper says; and what Gdel implies, even though the latter uses axiomatic reduction as proof instead of collections of observations. Proof for this theorem, requires demonstrating formally that both are equivalent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2008 8:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 12-24-2008 4:22 AM erikp has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 21 of 37 (491906)
12-24-2008 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by erikp
12-24-2008 3:30 AM


Re: Confusing terminology
quote:
For Gdel's proof to apply, it must be possible to represent the statements in the theory with natural numbers
That is inaccurate. What is needed is a way for a statement in the system to represent itself, so that it is possible to create a version of the "liar paradox". Gdel used natural numbers because he was working with mathematics - that was the system he was interested in.
In fact your criterion cannot possible be correct because the poorer the system is, the easier it is to represent in other forms !
quote:
Now, instead of using the axiomatic reduction of the statement as proof, we define its collection of all possible observations as proof. Each potential observation can be represented as a number too. The Gdel number for the proof is then the number representing its collection of possible observations (Y) for statement (X).
We must therefore show that for any such given statement X, the number Y (its proof) does not exist. That would prove that all such statements X are false.
In other words you are vaguely presenting something that looks a bit like Gdel's proof - but leaves out the essential element, among other fatal flaws.
quote:
This is what Popper says; and what Gdel implies, even though the latter uses axiomatic reduction as proof instead of collections of observations
I very much doubt that Popper said any such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 3:30 AM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 4:26 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 23 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 4:36 AM PaulK has replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 22 of 37 (491907)
12-24-2008 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
12-24-2008 4:22 AM


Re: Confusing terminology
>>>> In other words you are vaguely presenting something that looks a bit like Gdel's proof - but leaves out the essential element, among other fatal flaws.
Gdel uses axiomatic reduction as proof mechanism, while I used not contradicting the observations as proof mechanism. It is indeed not exactly the same. So, that is indeed something that I did not prove.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 12-24-2008 4:22 AM PaulK has not replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 23 of 37 (491909)
12-24-2008 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
12-24-2008 4:22 AM


Re: Confusing terminology
>>> Gdel used natural numbers because he was working with mathematics - that was the system he was interested in.
Not true. As long as you can represent anything as natural numbers, the theory applies. Gdel represents statements as natural numbers, because then he can apply number theory to theorems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 12-24-2008 4:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 12-24-2008 10:59 AM erikp has not replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 24 of 37 (491917)
12-24-2008 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Granny Magda
12-23-2008 2:23 PM


Re: A Serious Misunderstanding of the Scientific Method
>>> Two contradictory unprovable statements could not both be true. To regard two such statements as both being true is to embrace absurdity. In the real world, two mutually contradictory statements cannot, by definition, both be true. In your world, they both have to be considered be true.
By defining "true" as "can impossibly be contradicted by facts" (past or future), a thesis and its antithesis can both be true at the same time.
>>> A theory that accurately describes reality would be correct.
A theory cannot accurately describe reality. If it does, it just means that we haven't been diligent enough in making contradicting observations.
>>> We are being watched by the invisible and undetectable eyes of the machine elves from the other side.
I need more information to reject this statement and let you elaborate. I have to wait until your description finally contains something falsifiable, and then produce the contradicting observation.
"eyes", "machine", "elves", however, come dangerously close to something that can be falsified.
But then again, as long as your elaboration of the theory stays clear from becoming falsifiable, both your theory and the antithesis for your theory remain: unproven true.
But then again, you will quickly notice that it is not easy at all to keep producing unproven true statements for hundreds of pages ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Granny Magda, posted 12-23-2008 2:23 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Blue Jay, posted 12-24-2008 11:46 AM erikp has not replied
 Message 27 by Granny Magda, posted 12-24-2008 7:40 PM erikp has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 25 of 37 (491927)
12-24-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by erikp
12-24-2008 4:36 AM


Re: Confusing terminology
quote:
Not true. As long as you can represent anything as natural numbers, the theory applies. Gdel represents statements as natural numbers, because then he can apply number theory to theorems.
Complete and utter rubbish.
A trivial axiomatic system with a single axiom (1) and identity as the only allowable derivation rule is quite easily represented by natural numbers, (1 and 1 = 1). However, Gdel's theorem does NOT apply because the system is not sufficiently rich.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 4:36 AM erikp has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 26 of 37 (491930)
12-24-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by erikp
12-24-2008 9:04 AM


Re: A Serious Misunderstanding of the Scientific Method
Hi, Erik. Welcome to EvC!
erikp writes:
By defining "true" as "can impossibly be contradicted by facts" (past or future), a thesis and its antithesis can both be true at the same time.
First, you've conveniently defined "true" to include unfalsifiability, which is obviously not compatible with Popperian logic. Yet, you still regularly appeal to Popper.
Second, I'd like to see an example wherein both the thesis and its antithesis are concurrently true.
Third, what does this have to do with science and religion having "explanatory space?" Make sure you relate your posts back to the topic of the thread.
-----
Since you're new at EvC, here are some helps:
The admins like you to use the premade quote boxes for quoting other posts. Use these codes (without the spaces) to make quote boxes:
[ q s ] Paste quote here [ / q s ]
Without the spaces, it ends up like this:
Paste quote here
Or, as Paul likes to do, you can use this one:
[ quote ] Paste quote here [ / quote ]
And it looks like this:
quote:
Paste quote here
Also, each message has a "Peek" button at the bottom of it, to let you see what codes were used in that message. And, on the "Reply" page, there's a list of "dBCodes" provided.
Edited by Bluejay, : Code problems
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 9:04 AM erikp has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 27 of 37 (491959)
12-24-2008 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by erikp
12-24-2008 9:04 AM


Re: A Serious Misunderstanding of the Scientific Method
I'm finding it hard it believe that you're not winding us up. Surely you can't be serious?
quote:
By defining "true" as "can impossibly be contradicted by facts" (past or future), a thesis and its antithesis can both be true at the same time.
That would quite obviously be a logical contradiction. It's incredible that you could type that last sentence without realising what nonsense you're talking. It's no more possible than a square circle or one equalling two. If you are going to base your argument upon absurdities, you have no argument.
I agree with Bluejay; you need to provide an example of both thesis and antithesis being true. Of course, if you find one, you will have proved your theory, which would make it false...
quote:
A theory cannot accurately describe reality. If it does, it just means that we haven't been diligent enough in making contradicting observations.
This appears to be where your misunderstanding lies. Theory can accurately describe reality. The only difficulty (apart from creating the theory in the first place) is in knowing how completely you have succeeded in the attempt. Even if a theory is perfect, there is no magic way of knowing this with total confidence for all future circumstances. That is why theories are held tentatively. It does not mean that no theory can be completely correct nor, even more absurdly, that it must be false. It just means that we should keep an open mind regarding observations that might not be in line with theory and be ready to improve theory accordingly.
I think you need to read Hopper again, because you appear to have badly missed his points.
Speaking of whom, were you going to back up your claim that Hopper and Godel agree with you, or are you just going to keep bluffing?
quote:
"eyes", "machine", "elves", however, come dangerously close to something that can be falsified.
But then again, as long as your elaboration of the theory stays clear from becoming falsifiable, both your theory and the antithesis for your theory remain: unproven true.
The terms "machine elves" and even "eyes" are mere place-holders for concepts far beyond our comprehension. If we came close to understanding the reality of the mighty machine elves, they would transform into something even more bizarre and incomprehensible (Douglas Adams fans might suggest that this has already happened).
Is that unprovable enough for you? Are you ready to make a prize prat of yourself by admitting that your theory defines the machine elves real?
Oh and hey, merry Christmas! Except that the antithesis must be true as well, so I hope that you have a really lousy Christmas as well, just to be on the safe side.
Mutate and Survive/Stagnate and Die Out

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 9:04 AM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by erikp, posted 01-13-2009 6:41 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 28 of 37 (494042)
01-13-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Granny Magda
12-24-2008 7:40 PM


Re: A Serious Misunderstanding of the Scientific Method
When is a theory "true" and when is it "false"? This question goes straight to the core of the problem.
What's more, this is an issue of definition. Assuming the following definitions of true and false:
A theory is false, if at least one observation contradicts it.
A theory is true, if all possible observations concur with it.
If it is not possible to make any observations for the theory, all possible observations necessarily concur with it, and therefore, the theory must be considered to be true.
If it is not possible to make any observations for the theory, it is not possible to make them for the antithesis too. Consequently, the antithesis is also true.
I admit that this is a borderline case, but it concurs with the definitions stated. So, in this borderline case, both the thesis as the antithesis are true.
Science if full of strange results in borderline cases. What's so new about that?
The remainder of your answer lacks scientific rigor.
Edited by erikp, : Explaining why I don't answer the remainder of the post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Granny Magda, posted 12-24-2008 7:40 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2009 7:04 AM erikp has replied
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 01-13-2009 7:06 AM erikp has not replied
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2009 7:45 AM erikp has replied
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 01-13-2009 10:03 AM erikp has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 29 of 37 (494043)
01-13-2009 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by erikp
01-13-2009 6:41 AM


Re: A Serious Misunderstanding of the Scientific Method
quote:
What's more, this is an issue of definition. Assuming the following definitions of true and false:
A theory is false, if at least one observation contradicts it.
A theory is true, if all possible observations concur with it.
That definition of "true" is in fact the definition of "unfalsifiable". Since it would be incorrect to accept a theory as true because it is unfalsifiable the definition is obviously faulty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by erikp, posted 01-13-2009 6:41 AM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by erikp, posted 01-13-2009 11:30 AM PaulK has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 30 of 37 (494044)
01-13-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by erikp
01-13-2009 6:41 AM


Re: A Serious Misunderstanding of the Scientific Method
You again...
quote:
A theory is false, if at least one observation contradicts it.
A theory is true, if all possible observations concur with it.
Almost. What if the the observation required to falsify a theory is a practical impossibility? You are forgetting that it is not possible to make any absolute statement on what observations are potentially possible, as opposed to those which happen to be possible at a particular point in time. We have no idea what might be potentially possible in the future, so your definitions are completely meaningless and a total waste of time.
quote:
If it is not possible to make any observations for the theory, all possible observations necessarily concur with it, and therefore, the theory must be considered to be true.
Cobblers. A theory with no observations to back it up is not a theory; it is merely a hypothesis. What's more, you are attempting to define truth as being characterised by a total lack of evidence, a clear nonsense.
quote:
If it is not possible to make any observations for the theory, it is not possible to make them for the antithesis too.
This in no way follows. It might be perfectly possible to make observations for the antithesis, even if none were available for the thesis itself.
quote:
Consequently, the antithesis is also true.
Self-indulgent crap. The thesis and antithesis cannot be simultaneously true. This is a simple piece of basic logic. Your argument defies logic. Thus your argument is wrong. this should be easy to grasp, yet it seems to elude you. You are out of your depth and wasting your time on illogical nonsense.
quote:
I admit that this is a borderline case, but it concurs with the definitions stated. So, in this borderline case, both the thesis as the antithesis are true.
It is not a borderline case. It is a very clear case of you founding your argument upon a logical fallacy. Stop wasting your time on this pathetic sophistry, no-one is convinced. Oh, by the way, have you dug out the sources that back up your claims about Popper and Godel? Thought not.
quote:
Science if full of strange results in borderline cases. What's so new about that?
Care to cite a case where both thesis and antithesis are simultaneously true? You know, just to demonstrate that this piffle has some merit outside of your imagination.
quote:
The remainder of your answer lacks scientific rigor.
Of course it does! It's your bloody argument! Your tortured and twisted parody of logic, when taken to its conclusion, means that the machine elves from the other side must be considered real. And not real. At the same time. Of course this is not scientific, that is what me and everyone else on this thread have been trying to tell you.
Unless you can come up with a concrete example of a thesis and antithesis being concurrently true, you are wasting my time. Please include such an example in your next post or don't bother replying.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by erikp, posted 01-13-2009 6:41 AM erikp 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