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

That's what I was trying to get at with one of my points. He said it would be the easiest thing to answer, and will address it last. If it were that easy... why not take it out first? Then deal with the lengthier issues. Ah well... that would just be logical.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

and why make a post that you are going to answer a simple question while not answering it - ?yeah, I saw that.

To Razd. Absolutley , YES. I have never said otherwise. The contention of most of the posts as you call them has been that Logic is not a science. This what I have been battaling. By NATURAL however, I think you mean biological, correct.D Bertot

To Silenth. As I explained to you in my response. I dont have the amounts of time you must have to set at a computer and provide responses. If I am the only one on this post trying to respond to 15 different people, each with 83 comments every time I make a comment, you see my difficulty. My difficluty is not in answering them, its trying to pick out the essentials. I suppose any moron can see this but continues to be difficult and rude. That of course should be our WATCHWORDS for you fellas, RUDE and inconsiderate.D Bertot

To Dr. Inadequate. It appears now that you guys are starting to contradict yourselves. RAZD's definition clearly says it is SCIENCE and he atleast agrees with that much and you appear not to. Maybe you should talk to him.Have you been here for most of this discussion, when you make a comment like, "Logic can tell us nothing of the real world unless you have some facts about the real world". I simply said that some FACTS derived from the SCIENCE OF LOGIC , dont need further testing, measurement and prediction, they are truths in fact, without a specific physical testing, like that of a test tube method. Further, your contention in the Spock situation you offered has been answered numerous times. Please pay attention.D Bertot

To Atheist. I will not answer this again and again, simply go back and read my responses. I have demonstrated this numerous timesD bertot

To sidelined, First off I do not appreciate you picture beside your name. I suppose this why most of the people that agree with me, dont bother talking to you. You not only RUSE and ABUSIVE, yopur vulgar and degrading as well.Again about the Spock illustration. I noticed you agree he established a FACT, in your response. Now, is this a REAL FACT or just a FACT, that you are going to say, is NOT REAL FACT at some other point in the discussion, because we cant really know the truth about anything anyway? Get the point now? You guys play with words so much that the average person is so confused they dont know where you are coming from.. Happily, I have been debating these issues so long I can see through all of that kind of BS. And yes, I agree, that FACTS OR PREMISES have to correspond to the real world, that is and was not my point in that situation. I meant physical handling or testing of that type.D Bertot

To reiverix, whats wrong with a simple frekin name? You dont mean to tell me that something cant be valid, because its out of a book or a movie. Its validity lies in what it is composed of not where it came from. Oh yeah my mistake, I forgot they didnt contact the EXPERTS, and that of couse would be you guys. Stupid me again."What did I miss it?., I have read every post here". I suppose the same person that doesnt know that FACT means FACT and KNOW means KNOW or TRUTH means TRUTH, and pretends these things dont exist as a part of reality, would not be able to see the obvious points I have made as well.And of course being a scientist makes you correct in all situations all the time. I know and am aquainted with many scientists that dont agree with you. Oh yeah, though, their the STUPID SCIENTISTS.D Bertot

To modulous. Basically I have already answered this in all the other post tonight. I disagree with the basic part of your response because there is not a clear distinction at times about the concept of TRUTH derived from a math or scientific conclusion. Again listen up. yop are using you terms MATHMATICAL and SCIENTIFIC and applying you definiton to them, thats the contention at hand. Any THINKING person can see that the truth he arrived at was TRUTHFUL reguardless of the method. And yes to answer you question A LOGICAL TRUTH IS A FACT. This confusion of terms offered by your type of science IS EXACALLY MY POINT. Question? In science, your brand of SCIENCE, IS A TREE A TREE OR IS IT SOMETHING ELSE. My goodness this is just plain silly

Since you won't bother to sum up your argument (being too busy accusing others of "playing word games" for seeing through YOUR word games) I'll do it:Logic is a scienceIt is possible to narrow down the possibiltiies for the origin of life to two or three of which ID is one.This is logic because it sort of looks like something Spock did in a Star Trek movieTherefore ID is science(I repeat that this is Dawn's argument, I take no blame for it!)Note that the definition of science used is not the same as that used in "Science classes" , and even if this argument was valid it wouldn't give the least justification for putting ID into science classes at all. The only reason for using the word "science" is because Dawn is playing a word-game. But you mustn't notice that because if you do Dawn will accuse YOU of playing a word-game. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

It's perfectly clear. Truths derived from math need no reference to physical things. Truths derived scientifically require reference to physical things. I wouldn't be using a definition I don't think is correct, would I? I did not say otherwise. But a logical truth is not a fact about the physical world. Science is a study of nature, so if the fact isn't about the physical you didn't do science to get it. The confusion is yours alone. Perhaps that means something. I consider science to be that which is done using the scientific method. The scientific method is

quote:

---

gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

---

to quote wiki. If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing science. Logic is only the latter part of that method, not the method itself. A tree is a a perennial woody plant having a main trunk and usually a distinct crown (American Heritage). Biological classification is not a purely logical exercise, it requires observing the objects to be classified.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Try not to be rude and stupid simulataneously. At least try to alternate between the two. Sure. RAZD, in your brave attempt to accommodate Dawn's nutty fantasies, you are misusing the word "science".From the Oxford English Dictionary: "Science: the intellectual and practical activity ecompassing the systemeatic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural word through observation and experiment".Logic is not, therefore, a science. I have been here for most of this discussion, though I don't see why this is relevant, I could tell you what logic is without having been present, since it is part of my profession to know this. But not rationally and coherently.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, by "natural" I mean what the wiki article says is natural science: everything but math, logic and the social sciences. That includes physics and chemistry, geology and astronomy, as well as the biological sciences. To be clear, and according to the agreed compromise definition, it is a kind of formal science, the other formal science is math. They are different from ALL the other sciences because they use a different methodology.Let me quote the passage again:

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.

---

I also noted a different encyclopedia that did NOT include math and logic in its discussion of science.In the above wiki article the first use of "science" would be the general definition of a methodical study of things, like packing a suitcase, and it then distinguishes those disciplines of science that use the scientific method from math and logic "which use a different methodology" and then divides the remaining sciences into "natural science" and "social science" ... which "use the scientific method."Now in agreeing to this compromise position you have agreed that logic is not a natural science. The next question is whether you think logic is a social science.To Dr A: Not really, I am using the broad definition that just involves methodical study of something, and then distinguishing the different types of science under that -- natural sciences, social sciences and formal sciences (math and logic). This position shows that we are NOT talking about the same thing when we talk about natural science and logic, and that to imply this is so is to equivocate on these meanings.This is like using the common definition of "theory" and then distinguishing it from "scientific theory".Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : color

---

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.

It seems a bit of a stretch of the word to me --- like calling a horse an "equine automobile".Still, if Dawn will admit that at most logic is only a "science" in the sense that maths is a "science", then we shall have made some progress.

You think I'm a scientist. Where on earth did you pull that one from? I came to this site to learn. You came here with an agenda and refuse to learn.ABE
Unless you think computer science counts. I do use logic in that area.Edited by reiverix, : No reason given.