|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Hope this message finds you doing well.
Ringo writes: You may be missing the subtlety but there's no contradiction. Are you absolutely sure there is ‘no contradiction’?? If not, I respectfully request that you go back over my posts and see if I am not correct in my assertion that you are contradicting yourself in many areas.
Ringo writes: I say you're chasing your tail because your reasoning is circular. Would you, please, explain what reasoning of mine is circular in nature? Thank you.
Ringo writes: Everything you say is based on the assumption of absolute truth. Of course, because, as you have begrudgingly acknowledged ‘Absolute Truth’ does, indeed, exist. Therefore, to ignore it would be, in my opinion, ludicrous.
Ringo writes: When we form a hypothesis about anything, we automatically doubt that it's correct. Actually, when I form a hypothesis (based on all available evidence) about something I automatically assume it to be ‘true’ until I can convince myself, or someone else can convince me, otherwise.
Ringo writes: When a hypothesis passes our testing, we become more confident that it approaches "truth". However, we are always testing our hypotheses. We are never completely sure that our theories are The Truth. On this point I can whole heartedly agree with you. However, the reason we can be sure that our hypotheses are not ‘The Truth’ (as you put it) is because we know that we know in part. Many people have gotten themselves in ‘Scientific Hot Water’ (so-of-speak) because they have thrown out a presupposition as ‘Fact’ only to find out they did not know enough about the situation to make that claim, and it turned out to be either invalid or not ‘true’ in all situations/respects. As with many things these days word are often thrown around and misused; and that causes confusion and misunderstandings. (This is why I often offer a definition when using certain word.)
Ringo writes: We always doubt their perfection. Again, agreed! However, there is a difference in ‘doubting the perfection’ of a ‘hypothesis’ and doubting the vary foundations of reality. We should always be aware that we know in part, and we see in part; but that does not mean we must doubt that there is a ‘fullness’. In other words, when I look up into the night sky and see (with my naked eye) only a few hundred thousand stars (or what looks to be only a few hundred thousand stars) that does not prompt me to doubt that there are more stars and even galaxies full of stars beyond what I can see. In the same way I may not fully understand everything there is to know about ‘Absolute Truth’ but that does not make me doubt that it exists. We can always learn more about the ‘Absolute Truth’s’ we know exist; like the Law of Non-Contradiction, I know it is an ‘Absolute Truth’ even though I do not fully understand and appreciate how it impacts everything around me.
Ringo writes: People like you, who believe in Absolute Truth, are wrong so often because you don't doubt your conclusions enough. First, I respectfully ask that you not make generalizations where you lump me into a category of ‘those people’. I personally, in my discussions with you, have not stated that something is ‘Absolutely True’ and you have proved that I was wrong; Have I?? Secondly, you are right that there have been people (not just religious people, not just Atheists, and not just Scientists) that have made claims that something was an ‘Absolute Truth’ and either have been proved wrong or others have claimed they were incorrect. However, how does that effect whether or not Absolute Truth does, in reality, exist?
Ringo writes: So can you, once and for all, give us any examples of "absolute truth" that are not trivial? I doubt it. Please, define ‘trivial’; Trivial to me is a subjective1 term, what one person considers ‘trivial’ someone else may think is paramount? Like with the Law of Non-Contradiction you say its ‘trivial’, but it permeates our daily lives, all of science is based on it, and we can’t even do math or even something as simple as arithmetic without it; so I would argue that it is paramount. Again, great fun, hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr
1 Subjective
adj. 1 belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered
2 of, relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions, prejudices, etc: subjective views. (Dictionary.com)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
I've told you before, if I mean absolutely, I'll say absolutely.
Are you absolutely sure there is ‘no contradiction’?? JRTjr01 writes:
That's not how science and critical thinking work. When we have tested a hypothesis with all available evidence we look for more evidence. Scientists try to falsify their own hypothesies. (If they don't do it themselves, somebody else will do it for them.)
ringo writes:
Actually, when I form a hypothesis (based on all available evidence) about something I automatically assume it to be ‘true’ until I can convince myself, or someone else can convince me, otherwise. When we form a hypothesis about anything, we automatically doubt that it's correct. JRTjr01 writes:
That's exactly what I'm saying; they didn't doubt their conclusions enough.
Many people have gotten themselves in ‘Scientific Hot Water’ (so-of-speak) because they have thrown out a presupposition as ‘Fact’ only to find out they did not know enough about the situation to make that claim, and it turned out to be either invalid or not ‘true’ in all situations/respects. JRTjr01 writes:
How so? Everything we know about reality is based on imperfect hypotheses. How could we get perfect knowledge?
However, there is a difference in ‘doubting the perfection’ of a ‘hypothesis’ and doubting the vary foundations of reality. JRTjr01 writes:
You have it backwards. You should doubt that all you see is all that exists.
In other words, when I look up into the night sky and see (with my naked eye) only a few hundred thousand stars (or what looks to be only a few hundred thousand stars) that does not prompt me to doubt that there are more stars and even galaxies full of stars beyond what I can see. JRTjr01 writes:
That's the problem. I keep asking you for examples of absolute truth and you keep ducking the question. I can't prove you're wrong until you say something.
I personally, in my discussions with you, have not stated that something is ‘Absolutely True’ and you have proved that I was wrong; Have I??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
A pleasure hearing from you again.
JRTjr01 writes: Are you absolutely sure there is ‘no contradiction’?? Ringo writes:
I've told you before, if I mean absolutely, I'll say absolutely. Since you are not ‘absolutely sure there is ‘no contradiction’’ why do you keep say There is no contradiction?? I have substantiated that your statements are indeed contradictory; have you evidence that my conclusions are in error?? Or Are you just going to deny anything that you disagree with?
JRTjr01 writes: Actually, when I form a hypothesis (based on all available evidence) about something I automatically assume it to be ‘true’ until I can convince myself, or someone else can convince me, otherwise. Ringo writes:
That's not how science and critical thinking work. When we have tested a hypothesis with all available evidence we look for more evidence. Scientists try to falsify their own hypothesies. (If they don't do it themselves, somebody else will do it for them.) You say That's not how science and critical thinking work. and then repeat exactly what I said in different words. So, how is what I said not how science and critical thinking work??
JRTjr01 writes: I personally, in my discussions with you, have not stated that something is ‘Absolutely True’ and you have proved that I was wrong; Have I?? Ringo writes:
That's the problem. I keep asking you for examples of absolute truth and you keep ducking the question. I can't prove you're wrong until you say something.
How is stating: the ‘law of non-contradiction’1 is an ‘Absolute Truth’ and therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ does exist ducking the question?? Even though you have not directly acknowledged this as being an ‘absolute truth’ (I.e. you have ‘Ducked the question’ as you put it) you have not stated that it is not (nor have you provided any evidence that it is not); therefor I conclude that you have been unable to form an argument against the ‘law of non-contradiction’ being an ‘Absolute Truth’ and that therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ indeed exists.
JRTjr01 writes: However, there is a difference in ‘doubting the perfection’ of a ‘hypothesis’ and doubting the vary foundations of reality. Ringo writes:
How so?...
To do science we must start with a few pre-suppositions. First: The Universe2 is Real3.Second: the law of non-contradiction 1 is unquestionably ‘True’4. Science5 itself hinges on these two (and other) ‘Facts’6. God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So, how is what I said not how science and critical thinking work?? In science, you don't assume your hypothesis is true. You do everything you can to show that it is false, and then when you cannot show that it is false, you accept that it is a reasonable approximation of the truth.
Second: the law of non-contradiction 1 is unquestionably ‘True’4. Well, a particle (A) is not a wave (B). But light (C) behaves as both a wave and a particle. A != BC=A C=B Therefore, A=B But A !=B Light behaving as both a wave and a particle paradoxically violates the law of noncontradiction, so its not really unquestionable true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
If I had to be absolutely sure before saying something, I'd never be able to say anything.
Since you are not ‘absolutely sure there is ‘no contradiction’’ why do you keep say There is no contradiction?? JRTjr01 writes:
You said that you automatically assume your hypothesis to be true until proven false. I said that scientists try to prove their hypotheses false. Do you really not see the distinction?
You say That's not how science and critical thinking work. and then repeat exactly what I said in different words. JRTjr01 writes:
The question is: Give an example of absolute truth besides the law of non-contradiction. How is stating: the ‘law of non-contradiction’1 is an ‘Absolute Truth’ and therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ does exist ducking the question?? Since you don't seem to have any, maybe we need to go back to square one. I said in Message 64:
quote:Do you understand the difference between objective and absolute?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Catholic Scientist,
Again, a pleasure hearing from you, I hope you enjoy our little endeavor.
Catholic Scientist writes: In science, you don't assume your hypothesis is true. You do everything you can to show that it is false, and then when you cannot show that it is false, you accept that it is a reasonable approximation of the truth. I’m sorry, I find this hard to believe; I mean come on; you really want people to believe that someone comes up with a hypothesis, says Well I doubt this is true but let me go to my financiers and tell them of this hypothesis of mine, I doubt, and ask them to give me money to prove I am wrong. Sorry, don’t buy it. The more likely story is that a scientist comes up with a hypothesis, he believes fits the facts (he believes to be true); he then goes to his financiers and says: Hay, I think this is true and if you give me the money to prove it I could make you even more money. No one, I know, is going to put time and effort into something that they came up with unless they believe it to be true. Unless, they are trying to scam someone; but even then the scammer has to believe that the scam will work. This is the problem with gamblers, they believe their systems, or luck, or ‘whatever they call it’ will work; not that it will not work. Now there is such a thing as going too far the other direction as well. History is replete with Scientist (and other people as well) who were so convince that their hypothesis was so absolutely correct that they would not even acknowledge that there was any evidence that could refute their claim. {There are people like that even today.}
Catholic Scientist writes: Light behaving as both a wave and a particle paradoxically violates the law of no contradiction, so its not really unquestionable true. Sorry, I think you misspoke here. You acknowledge that this is a ‘Paradox’ and then say it violates the law of no contradiction. So which point are you making? Are you saying that Light behaving as both a wave and a particle is a ‘Paradox’? Or Are you saying that Light behaving as both a wave and a particle violates the law of no contradiction? Hope to hear from you soon :-} God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Hope this message finds you well.
Ringo writes: If I had to be absolutely sure before saying something, I'd never be able to say anything. If I had to be absolutely sure before saying something I would have very little to say myself; however, my point was not that ‘you should be absolutely sure before saying something’; my point was: ‘If, as you say ‘you cannot be absolutely sure of anything then’ why are you stating unequivocally1 that I am, in fact wrong about anything.’ I could see it if you used phrases like ‘I don’t think you’re right about that’ or ‘as far as I understand it you’re point is incorrect’ or ‘I believe it is possible that you are mistaken’; but no, you do not use these phrases that leave room for error. You state things like There is no absolute truth., Objective truth is what we have left when we remove all of the biases., I said that absolute truth does not exist until it has been shown to exist., No. I'm denying the possibility that you can know it absolutely.; all of these statement are unequivocal statements.
Ringo writes: You said that you automatically assume your hypothesis to be true until proven false. I said that scientists try to prove their hypotheses false. Do you really not see the distinction? Sorry, but you’re misquoting me. When I said: You say That's not how science and critical thinking work. and then repeat exactly what I said in different words. I was speaking of my statement:
JRTjr01 writes: when I form a hypothesis (based on all available evidence) about something I automatically assume it to be ‘true’ until I can convince myself, or someone else can convince me, otherwise. and you’re statement:
Ringo writes: When we have tested a hypothesis with all available evidence we look for more evidence. Scientists try to falsify their own hypothesies. (If they don't do it themselves, somebody else will do it for them.) These two statements, for all intents and purposes, say the same thing; do they not?
Ringo writes: The question is: Give an example of absolute truth besides the law of non-contradiction. Actually, the question we are still dealing with is:
Ringo writes: If you claim there is "absolute truth" then you need to provide evidence of absolute truth. Now, if you’re willing to admit that Absolute Truth does indeed exist (I.e. the ‘law of non-contradiction’ is an ‘Absolute Truth’ and therefore ‘Absolute Truth’ does exist), as you stated you would When you can demonstrate that you have absolute truth about anything, I'll be glad to retract the statement that there is no absolute truth. then sure; we can move on to other Absolute Truths. However, if you’re going to continue skirting the Absolute Truth of the ‘law of non-contradiction’, make contradictory statements, and accusing me of making bad arguments when I am using your logic, no, I see no reason to continue offering more Absolute Truths if you can’t acknowledge the Absolute Truth I have already provided. It is not wise to build a house until you’re sure you have a good foundation. I’m not going to stop responding to your post, or start slandering you in anyway (as many do), but I prefer to not jump over steps just because someone does not want to deal with the ramifications. Logic, in some ways, is a lot like math; if you skip a step you are more likely to get the wrong answer. This is why there is so much confusion in the world, because we either accidently or purposefully skip steps and then are unwilling to go back and check our work. When someone points out our mistakes we have a choice to make; we can either entrench ourselves in our position (unwilling to admit our failings) or accept our errors and make the necessary corrections. God Bless,
JRTjr 1Unequivocal: adjective
1 not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent; unequivocal proof.
2 absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions: The cosigner of a note gives unequivocal assurance that it will be paid when due.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes: In science, you don't assume your hypothesis is true. You do everything you can to show that it is false, and then when you cannot show that it is false, you accept that it is a reasonable approximation of the truth. I’m sorry, I find this hard to believe; I mean come on; you really want people to believe that someone comes up with a hypothesis, says Well I doubt this is true but let me go to my financiers and tell them of this hypothesis of mine, I doubt, and ask them to give me money to prove I am wrong. There's a difference between believing that you have the right hypothesis, and assuming that it is true.
Sorry, I think you misspoke here. You acknowledge that this is a ‘Paradox’ and then say it violates the law of no contradiction. So which point are you making? Are you saying that Light behaving as both a wave and a particle is a ‘Paradox’? Or Are you saying that Light behaving as both a wave and a particle violates the law of no contradiction? Both. They're not mutually exclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
Exactly. We are always partially wrong about everything. Our knowledge of everything is flawed. We are never absolutely right.
If, as you say ‘you cannot be absolutely sure of anything then’ why are you stating unequivocally1 that I am, in fact wrong about anything.’ JRTjr01 writes:
As I have said more than once, if I mean absolutely, I will say "absolutely". Any time I do not say "absolutely" I'm automatically leaving room for error.
but no, you do not use these phrases that leave room for error. JRTjr01 writes:
Certianly not. You automatically assume your hypothesis to be true. Scientists automatically assume their hypothesis to be false.
I was speaking of my statement:
quote:and you’re statement: quote:These two statements, for all intents and purposes, say the same thing; do they not? JRTjr01 writes:
As I have said, the law of non-contradiction is true by its own definition. If I define a giraffe as "a six-legged reptile" then the definition is "true" even if it has no relation to reality.
However, if you’re going to continue skirting the Absolute Truth of the ‘law of non-contradiction’... JRTjr01 writes:
In logic we need to look at the conclusion to see if the premises are valid. We need to test your premise that the law of non-contradiction is essential to science - so give us some other examples of absolute truth to work with.
Logic, in some ways, is a lot like math; if you skip a step you are more likely to get the wrong answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Catholic Scientist,
Great hearing from you again, hope all is well.
Catholic Scientist writes: There's a difference between believing that you have the right hypothesis, and assuming that it is true. Soo, what you’re telling me is that you can ‘believe’ your hypothesis is correct; but you’re going to assume that its wrong?? Still not buying it; you’re still not going to say: ‘Well I ‘believe’ this hypothesis of mine is right, however, I want you to give me a bunch of money to prove myself wrong’!?
Catholic Scientist writes:
JRTjr writes:
So which point are you making? Are you saying that Light behaving as both a wave and a particle is a ‘Paradox’? Or Are you saying that Light behaving as both a wave and a particle violates the law of no contradiction? Both. They're not mutually exclusive. Sorry, I did not define my terms.
Paradox: adjective
1.a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
3.any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature. Contradiction: adjective
2.assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4.direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency. Now, Light does have properties of both ‘Particles’ and ‘Waves’; however, it is neither a ‘Particle’ nor a ‘Wave’ and it is this vary problem that has lead us to the theory of Quantum-Mechanics (Please, see YouTub video Here). Using Quantum-Mechanics we now know that Light can behave both as ‘Particles’ and as ‘Waves’ and that this is a ‘Paradox’ (two things that only seam contradictory) not a ‘Contradiction’ (two thing that are, in every respect, contradictory). If two things could be true, in the same way, at the same time, and be contradictory then there would be no way to know anything; and that would include knowing that we could or could not know anything. I give an example of this problem in a post to another person I have corresponded with in the past. He stated:
quote: quote: My response was:
JRTjr writes: If, in fact, it were a fact (that we cannot know facts), then we could not know that it was a fact, because we would be incapable of knowing facts. Only if we could know facts could we know we can’t know facts, so if we know facts then we must be able to know facts, because, after all, if we could not know facts, we would be unable to know we did not know them. So, in this illustration we can either ‘Know Facts’ (and know that we know them) or we cannot ‘Know Facts’ (and therefore cannot know that we do not know facts); however, we could not know that we cannot know facts. Ooooo, circular logic make my head spin. I hope I have not totally confused you, Hope to hear from you, again, soon :-} God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Soo, what you’re telling me is that you can ‘believe’ your hypothesis is correct; but you’re going to assume that its wrong?? What you are being surprised about is an essential part of the scientific method. Part of the process for verifying a hypothesis is obtaining evidence that disproves the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is based on your hypothesis being wrong. If your investigation into the null hypothesis is not robust, you'll get called on that by your peers, because you've likely made a mistake.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
In logic we need to look at the conclusion to see if the premises are valid. Generally speaking, this does not work. You cannot verify the premises are true just because the conclusion is true. The premises might well be irrelevant. For example I may have two apples. But the premises that you gave me one, and JRTJr01 gave me the other are still false.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2954 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Always a pleasure.
Ringo writes: As I have said more than once, if I mean absolutely, I will say "absolutely". Any time I do not say "absolutely" I'm automatically leaving room for error. Using the word Absolute is not the only way to denote that you’re not leaving any room for error. Example:
Ringo writes: We are never absolutely right. This is an unequivocal statement. God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Soo, what you’re telling me is that you can ‘believe’ your hypothesis is correct; but you’re going to assume that its wrong?? No, you just don't make any assumptions about its correctness. You're supposed to leave your biases at the door when you enter the lab.
Still not buying it; you’re still not going to say: ‘Well I ‘believe’ this hypothesis of mine is right, however, I want you to give me a bunch of money to prove myself wrong’!? Yes, and then when you are unable to prove the hypothesis wrong, we can accept it as being accurate. That's just how science works.
Sorry, I did not define my terms. I know what the words mean, I'm the one who used them. Argument via dictionary is the lamest argument. And trying to define a position into being right, is neither profound nor impressive.
Using Quantum-Mechanics we now know that Light can behave both as ‘Particles’ and as ‘Waves’ and that this is a ‘Paradox’ (two things that only seam contradictory) not a ‘Contradiction’ (two thing that are, in every respect, contradictory). You've just added that "in every respect" part in an attempt to save your position. Its unnecessary. Light behaves as both a particle and a wave, that is contradictory.
If two things could be true, in the same way, at the same time, and be contradictory then there would be no way to know anything; That's just not true. We know plenty of things independently of the contradictory things we've discovered. Just because discovered that we have Brownian motion in a deterministic Universe does not mean that all the other stuff we've learned suddenly becomes wrong or unknowable.
So, in this illustration we can either ‘Know Facts’ (and know that we know them) or we cannot ‘Know Facts’ (and therefore cannot know that we do not know facts); however, we could not know that we cannot know facts. Yawn. This is that stuff that people think is so impressive right after they take a freshman philosophy course. Tell me, what happens when Pinocchio says: "My nose will grow".? ZOMG!, mind blown!
I hope I have not totally confused you You're conceited too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
No, but if the conclusion is false it calls the premises into question.
You cannot verify the premises are true just because the conclusion is true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024