Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?

At the moment - we are at loggerheads and going around and around in circles.How about this as a suggestion - Dawn outlines how logic (as she defines or uses it - and I'll hold my hand up and say that I think that Dawn is very confused about a) what logic is, b) it's limits and c) it's application in scientific endeavour.) can be used to demonstrate that ID is a proper science.We then have a example to examine and discuss.

To CK, You are correct we are going around in circles, and in a moment I will definately show you why. As I began to type my responses last evening, I though OK, I will probably recieve a few responses in the morning. I certainly did not expect to recieve one 2 minutes later, that late in the evenig. GOOD HEAVENS , what do you people do, sit around the computer 24/7 and wait for responses. Unlike yourselves, I live in the real world and am not independantly wealth as some of you appear to be, that allowas you to do that. Having said that, I have much to do and am only able to make a quick response today. Now before anyone says Dawn (Im a guy by the way, my dad was an actual Rocket Scientist at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama and I was born on the same year and month of the first man space shot. He thought it would be fitting to name me this in honor of this event. Boy named Sue thing. So stop calling me Dear.), is afraid to respond, you will understand by my willingness to do this already and meet your arguments as well, that I am not.. Perhaps for today, you could go attack some other Ignorant, stupid and uninformed creationist and I will be more than happy to return to nightBefore we all get strung out like someone on crank about the Spock issue, I would like to point out that the only reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that you can establish FACTS independant of pysical properties and of course this he did using nothing but premises and valid conclusions. However, it must be pointed out his information was really use;ess to the captain. Kirk, would have been totally justified in turning and saying, "thanks Spock thats a real big help." But the BEAUTY and APPLICATION of his conclusion is the point. He established a TRUTH IN FACT WITHOUT THE USE OF A TEST TUBE OR anyother physical property. hat is the simple point I was making.Now that brings us to the point as to why we are having so much trouble here. I understand perfecly what Rationalism and Empericism are and even the definition issue, of what Science and Logic are is still not the issue here. Even though I have demonstrated numerous times now HOW Logic is a science, with many applications, even this is still not the problem. Here's the problem, you guys in the biological science community can take a simple word like FACT and give it a meaning that only applies to your standard and then imply or directly say that it has no application in any other setting of the process of establishing truth.. To demonstrate this, you use expessions like, "science isnt interested in truth"., as if truth and facts cannot be intertwined and the most certainly are, if you are willing to use an EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITON of the word Science and not you monopolized and exclusive one. If however, you are going to blindly assert that the only way to establish FACTS is by using some physical property as dirt or atoms, then we most certainly do have a problem here and we are going to continually go in circles. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, that on this website, you are demonstrating the very point I am making. You are establishing FACTS, now not all of the ones you bring up are valid, but some are. You are demonstrating FACTS by the use of a science called 'deductive and inductive reasoning'. This is a FACT that you are doing that, no pun intended. Wheather you want to believe it or not, FACTS can be FACTS and demonstratable as such, without the use of some physical property or a test tube. You fellas and gals have tried to create a world and definition of SCIENCE that does not allow this principle and you certainly are not warrented in doing this for all the reasons I have pointed out thus far and certainly many others as you will see as we proceed..Now is it clear to you WHAT THE PROBLEM IS?Like I said, I enjoy this and am certainly not afraid of anything that can be offered. Got to go for now, thanks again for you particapation.Mr. D Bertot

Hi, CK.Good suggestion. Do you want the honors of trying to talk DB through the process of presenting something?

---

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

But the truth established was just a mathematical construct. All he established was that "In a set of two, an entity within the set must either one or the other". In order to make this mathematical tautology applicable to the situation at hand he needed to refer to physical things. He needed to speak of the evidence of the other people that they were trying to communicate with, the evidence that their communication system was functioning both ways, and the evidence that he and Kirk could be relied upon to perceive a response as being a response.He needed to observe, importantly, what the two members of the set were: unable or unwilling (actually there are other options but that is beside the point). He needs to define his terms in light of physical properties here: the entities we are communicating with have the ability to communicate, and communication is act of will.Without the reference to real entities all Spock could have said was:{A,B}
if (not A) then BYes it is a true statement, and it came without reference to physical things, but it is a mathematically derived truth not a scientifically derived one. Scientifically derived facts may rely on mathematical truths, but they must also reference physical things since science is the study of physical things!Logic is not a science since on its own it does not reference physical things. One can apply logic in reference to physical things, but to know anything about those physical things requires studying the physical things first: the observation part of science. In short: Spock was using logic + empiricism in his statement.Your point seems to be that a logical truth is a fact. If we wish to define fact this way so be it. However - since it is not a fact about the physical world, it isn't a scientific fact and establishing it isn't science.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The problem with using Spock is that he is a fictional character. Every word he utters is made up by screenwriters who can devise any kind of logic they want to make him look clever. What. Did I miss it? I have read every post here. The real problem is that many people here are actual scientists and you are trying to tell them what their job entails.

Part of the problem seems to be excess verbiage.

---

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

DAwn Bertot Spock was only able to establish this fact through the application of a communications system which, my friend, is indeed a physical property.

Why don't we just agree that ID is about as scientific as a Star Trek movie ?

At the moment, you seem to be "holding" - this is suggesting that something can be supported by evidence or reasoning but never actually getting around to providing either.What people are looking for is something like the following:

quote:

---

ID can be described as....

---

quote:

---

Logic can be used to prove ID is true in the following way...

---

I am sorry, but I have been watching you misspell "ridiculous" so many times over the last couple of months, and I just can't take it any more and I have to let you know.Yes, I know I misspell lots of things, and make many consistent typos. I don't care. This bugs me. Please fix it.Thank you.Carry on.

Nator, I think he meant to.Rediculous:Intentional mispronunciation of "ridiculous" (based on the common misspelling) to indicate that something is ridiculous while also insinuating that somebody involved is stupid (i.e. implying that they are just as stupid as people who misspell "ridiculous").Urban Dictionary, August 20: sweet nothing

Well, I'm fascinated by your skillzors in TEH LOGIK!!!From the fact that someone was online at the same time as yourself, you deduce that the people who disagree with you "sit around the computer 24/7" and hence are "independently wealthy". No. He also had to know that the people he was talking about weren't communicating.If they were, then his "logic" would have been rubbish.Logic can tell you nothing about the real world without some facts about the real world. Yes. The problem is that you have a delusion that logic is a branch of science when it is in fact a branch of mathematics.Also, you are incoherent and stubborn as a mule, but if you can live with that so can I.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

A lot of bandwidth wasted on irrelevant issues, and a lack of real answers to specific questions\criticisms that challenge\refute your positions, for starters. That's just a general impression so far.Let's see if we can work on a compromise to establish a common ground for further discussion.Basis: "science" as described (by wiki) below:

quote:

---

In science, the term natural science refers to a rational approach to the study of the universe, which is understood as obeying rules or laws of natural origin. The term natural science is also used to distinguish those fields that use the scientific method to study nature from the social sciences, which use the scientific method to study human behavior and society; and from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, which use a different methodology.

---

If I agree that logic is a science (specifically a "formal science" like math), then will you agree that it is not a "natural science" ... yes?Note that The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2007 does not include logic or math as science in it's rather extensive description of what science is.Note further that thus far this is just agreeing to the terminology to use for further discussion.A simple yes or no will suffice, although reasons for a "no" may be provided.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

remember rob? he did "emperical" too. with spell checkers available it is just lazy posting. you know, like not using caps ... Edited by RAZD, : it's not him, jus mor bad spling

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Rob spammed a couple of people last week.He hasn't forgotten us!