Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
28 online now:
DrJones*, Guido Arbia, Theodoric (3 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,832 Year: 18,868/19,786 Month: 1,288/1,705 Week: 94/446 Day: 94/64 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?
JB1740
Member (Idle past 4234 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 271 of 312 (438184)
12-03-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dawn Bertot
12-03-2007 9:49 AM


Hi Dawn...just FYI...I didn't write the message to which this is a reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2007 9:49 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 272 of 312 (438186)
12-03-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by crashfrog
12-02-2007 2:50 PM


Re: Getting to the end, my friend.
Euclid's fifth axiom.
Self-evidently true, or self-evidently false? Or not self-evident at all?

Answer the question, DB. I know you know what axiom I'm talking about because I've told you, twice.

I am not being coy or evassive here. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THIS IS. PLEASE SET IT OUT AND EXPLAN IT. D Bertot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 12-02-2007 2:50 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2007 12:24 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 273 of 312 (438187)
12-03-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by RAZD
12-02-2007 2:54 PM


Re: No, no! Backward! 1 Step Forward, 2 Steps Back! Now do-si-do! Promenade Left!
Razd writes
False.

The question is whether it is a self-evident truth and not an assumption. The truth or falseness of the claim does not enter into the discussion. It is an assumption: we assume these truths to be self-evident for the purpose of the argument. That is the premise.

Your conflation of this with invalidation just shows your lack of understanding of basic logic form and structure -- the science of logic you so touted at the beginning.

Enjoy.

Absolutley and completely false. I have demonstrated how ASSUMPTIONS, validate the axiomm, not question or just assume its propositons. Again, it says to the axiom, now listen, 'You are sel-evident, (are you still listening),BECAUSE YOU REQUIRE NO PROOF. That means INCONTRAVERTABLE, NOT EVEN REQUIRING A TEST, if one wanted to do this. I further demonstrated this by the simple axiom of "Dead men tell not tales." To which, even your replies were silly and completley ridiculous

Your conflation of this with invalidation just shows your lack of understanding of basic logic form and structure -- the science of logic you so touted at the beginning.

And you COMPLETe unwillingness to be objective on even the simplest of points, demonstrates the position I have maintained since this started. For example you refusal to admit, that your science method, is not the only one on how one understands facts. No I understand Logic, just not your brand of it. Get it. D bertot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2007 2:54 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 274 of 312 (438190)
12-03-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by ringo
12-02-2007 2:02 PM


Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
Ringo writes.
Not at all. An axiom is an axiom only if it is agreed on and only for the purpose of the discussion where it is agreed on. Whether it is true/false or valid/invalid is irrelevant. It's the agreement for the purpose of argument - the acceptance by the parties involved - that makes it axiomatic.

Do I need everyones approval to know that dead people talk to anyone? Do I need everyones approval that the law of gravity is true?If you are not going to be objective, atleast try and be honesty and REASONABLE. D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 12-02-2007 2:02 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by ringo, posted 12-03-2007 2:06 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 275 of 312 (438195)
12-03-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Dawn Bertot
12-02-2007 1:46 PM


Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
RAZD WRITES
Are you telling me to assume that it is true for the sake of your argument? Now, I thought you were a christian, and I thought christians believed in an "after-life" ... and then there is the whole issue of ghosts and seances ... plus any number of religious beliefs involving communications with ancestors. Personally I don't believe any of them are true, but this is just an assumption on my part: I can't say I am 100% absolutely positively sure that no such communication is possible.

Try again.

If you are not going to be objective, atleast try and be RESONABLE. People that are dead are not alive, even if you think they can come back to life, while they are dead they tell you nothing. Again no one is willing to answer the axiom in its context, just like that of Spock. Now your admission, that you dont believe any of them are true, is the closest you have come to saying I cant answer your argument Dawn. Just be a big person and say , You cannot. This is what I meant earlier when I said, when people get into a situation they cannot respond to , they start getting plain silly. Your a reasonable person, if you are not going to be reasonable with me, atleast be honest with yourself later on Enjoy, RAZD. D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-02-2007 1:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 276 of 312 (438199)
12-03-2007 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by RAZD
12-02-2007 1:39 PM


Re: Getting to the end, my friend.
There are no self evident truths that allow anyone to move forward with 100% absolute and positive confidence. The most we can end up with is a tentative assumption of truth. Not (objective) fact. Sometimes we can have a high confidence in those tentative assumptions of truth, and sometimes we know they are very shaky because of all the unknowns that have to be assumed (like Rumsfield's "known unknowns").

We take the logical arguments as far as they can go, and then - if we are interested in their relation to reality - we test them against the (objective) evidence we can find of reality with (natural and social, scientific method) science to see if they stand up to scrutiny. We check to see if the conclusions based on axioms can be considered valid or sound or invalid or false based on that evidence. We eliminate concepts that are invalidated (contradicted) by the evidence to end up with an understanding of reality. Even then the most we can end up with is a tentative assumption of truth.

Message 248

It seems fitting with the above statement to make some concluding remarks here and wrap this up. Because it is with the above statement, which shows me that a person has basically lost the ability to be objective in any real sense. For example, "Even then the most we can end up with is a tenative assumption of truth".. This statement plainly says I refuse to see truth or the obvious force and reality of a Fact., (ie "dead men and the law of gravity., etc,) even if I cannot refute it or see its truth. How do reason with such a person.

Having been on this website, it has reminded me of being on a trip and having stopped in a certain town and visiting with its people. Thank you for you hospitality and for the most part I think we have all learned somthing.

If I do happen to see you on the other side I hope we recognize each other, so we can reminisce about these details. You have all been great and I hope you find the answers you are looking for. Death is soon for some not far away for any. In the words of Wallace I Matson at the end of the Warren-Matson Debate, Happy hunting and with this I BID YOU FAREWELL.

Mr. Dawn A Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2007 1:39 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 277 of 312 (438211)
12-03-2007 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Dawn Bertot
12-03-2007 9:38 AM


Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
Dawn Bertot writes:

I am going to asumme (no pun intended) that a person that cannot understand this statement is not going to understand much of anything.

Simply declaring others unable to understand you isn't going to get your point across any better. Did you ever consider that the fault might lie with your arguments and not with everyone else? Anyway, the fact remains that I cannot understand what you wrote. Someone with a clear point to make might be motivated to clarify rather than cast insults, so if you want me to understand what you're saying, you're going to have to express yourself more clearly.

And of course anyone that cannot understand that "dead men cannot talk to you" will also never ever be able to see the simple truth that is being set forth here (in an axiom), or likely see any truth anywhere. Think about it. And being unreasonable is of course no kind of answer to my arguments.

The strength of your arguments is not measured by your tenacity nor by your ability dole out insults, but by the merit of the arguments themselves as indicated by their ability to persuade others.

A simply rehearsal of the arguments that I have presented will demonstrate to any thinking person that I have established my case beyond any reasonable doubt.

Since you've persuaded no one, the evidence of your experience here says otherwise.

Again a TRUE AXIOM does not appear true it is TRUE and irrefutable, if you apply common sense and the science of deductive reasoning.

I think you still don't have a clear understanding of what an axiom is. Wikipedia has a couple interesting things to say about axioms:

Wikipedia writes:

As seen from definition, an axiom is not necessarily a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in a deduction to yield further results.

...

In natural sciences theories, an axiom is considered as an evident truth which does not need any explanation and is accepted without any demonstration or proof in their application domain. The weakness, applicability or utility of such logically correct theories depends on the arbitrary choice of their axioms.

What you're calling an axiom is probably more accurately called a deduction.

The bottom line on this topic remains the same. ID can only establish itself as accepted science in the same way as all other accepted sciences have achieved this position, through the gathering of evidence and their construction into a cogent interpretational framework.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2007 9:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 312 (438212)
12-03-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Dawn Bertot
12-03-2007 9:52 AM


Re: Getting to the end, my friend.
I am not being coy or evassive here. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THIS IS.

How can that be when I've explained in two different posts, one of which you replied to?

Nonetheless, here it is again:

If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.

Euclid's fifth axiom. Self-evidently true, self-evidently false, or not self evident at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2007 9:52 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-03-2007 1:25 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 283 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2007 2:59 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 279 of 312 (438223)
12-03-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by crashfrog
12-03-2007 12:24 PM


Re: Getting to the end, my friend.
Hey Crash (and others)

I just wanted to put you all straight on what an Axiom really is :)

It is a high resolution Inductively Coupled Mass Spectrometer made by VG Elemental (now a subsidiary of Thermo Electron) in the late 1990s through to about 2002.
Here is a picture of one with nice cutaways showing the fancy stuff on the insides.

I have two of them right here in my labs :)

Sorry... Couldn't resist that. This thread has already gotten completely ridiculus anyway so i figured a bit of frivolity wouldn't really hurt. hehehe ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2007 12:24 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17439
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 280 of 312 (438230)
12-03-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Dawn Bertot
12-03-2007 10:10 AM


Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
Dawn Bertot writes:

Do I need everyones approval to know that dead people talk to anyone?

Yes.

That's an excellent example of my point. If there was significant disagreement, it wouldn't be an axiom. Logical reasons why dead people can't talk are no substitute for empirical evidence that dead people don't talk.

"Dead men tell no tales" is an axiom only because most of us believe it.

Do I need everyones approval that the law of gravity is true?

Yes. If there was significant disagreement, it wouldn't be a law.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2007 10:10 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2007 2:37 PM ringo has responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 281 of 312 (438239)
12-03-2007 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by ringo
12-03-2007 2:06 PM


Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
Yes.

That's an excellent example of my point. If there was significant disagreement, it wouldn't be an axiom. Logical reasons why dead people can't talk are no substitute for empirical evidence that dead people don't talk.

"Dead men tell no tales" is an axiom only because most of us believe it.

Do I need everyones approval that the law of gravity is true?

Yes. If there was significant disagreement, it wouldn't be a law.

Ok, I coulndt resist, Maybe one more try here. The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD. Do you mean to tell me that, before anyone was around, the principle of Gravitiy was not a FACT OR A LAW. Do you mean to tell me that before the first animal or person died, it was not a law, principle or fact that they were finished communicating. Now anyone out there listening or watching can see the kind of Stupidity that I am dealing with here. So if there is significant disagreement that the world is round, then that means that it is not already a fact that it is already round.. Really friends think about what you are saying, Geees

FACT: "Something that is REAL AND EXISTS."
AXIOM: "A self-Evident TRUTH, that needs no PROOF."

Unbelievable, incomprehensable and completely stupid, is the only way to describe this kind of, lack of objectivity and honesty.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by ringo, posted 12-03-2007 2:06 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by ringo, posted 12-03-2007 2:55 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 287 by Percy, posted 12-03-2007 3:13 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 288 by Larni, posted 12-03-2007 3:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17439
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 282 of 312 (438245)
12-03-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Dawn Bertot
12-03-2007 2:37 PM


Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
Dawn Bertot writes:

Do you mean to tell me that before the first animal or person died, it was not a law, principle or fact that they were finished communicating.

How could there be a "law, principle or fact" about something that had never happened?

Now anyone out there listening or watching can see the kind of Stupidity that I am dealing with here.

Interesting then, isn't it, that mine isn't the "stupidity" that they're responding to? :)

So if there is significant disagreement that the world is round, then that means that it is not already a fact that it is already round.

Now you're confusing facts with axioms. The shape of the earth is a fact whether anybody knows it or not. It isn't an axiom unless it is accepted as such. "Roundness" is axiomatic if we agree on "roundness" for the sake of this discussion.

(In fact, of course, the earth is not "round".)

The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Glad I could broaden your horizons. :)


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2007 2:37 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2007 3:07 PM ringo has responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 283 of 312 (438248)
12-03-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by crashfrog
12-03-2007 12:24 PM


Re: Getting to the end, my friend.
If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.

I will admit up front I have no idea what is being said here. Ill make a deal with you crashfrog. If you put this in simple understandable language, I will give you a honest answer as to if it is or is not an axiom. Deal. D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2007 12:24 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-03-2007 3:07 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2007 8:59 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 284 of 312 (438251)
12-03-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Dawn Bertot
12-03-2007 2:59 PM


Re: Getting to the end, my friend.
I realize you are talking to Crashfrog but here is a nice example of Euclid's 5th axiom

The axiom states that if angles a and b total less than 180 degrees then the two lines, line1 and line2, if extrapolated upward far enough, will eventually meet.

In the diagram they are parallel


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2007 2:59 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2007 3:11 PM PurpleYouko has responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 285 of 312 (438252)
12-03-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by ringo
12-03-2007 2:55 PM


Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
How could there be a "law, principle or fact" about something that had never happened?

Listen up, when it did happen, it at that moment became a fact, truth or principle, without any consensus from anyone.

Now you're confusing facts with axioms. The shape of the earth is a fact whether anybody knows it or not. It isn't an axiom unless it is accepted as such. "Roundness" is axiomatic if we agree on "roundness" for the sake of this discussion.

(In fact, of course, the earth is not "round".)

No, you are failing to see that axioms are by the very nature of the case, are based in FACTS, with or without any consenses.

Dead men tell no tales, and no particle of EVIDENCE you could provide would refute this axiom. Go back and look at the silly responses that have been offered. D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ringo, posted 12-03-2007 2:55 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by ringo, posted 12-03-2007 3:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019