[/LIST]Well we seem to agree on the foundation of the principles. So we can move on.
Yes.
Does this emergent property include logic in your hypothetical idea?
Logic is not a property. It is a process.
Its within the subject. How could we know anything was true without the ordered universe to begin the discussion of how we verify knowledge is true.
We can accept that the universe has those properties, and we do not need to enter into a discussion about HOW the universe got those properties.
If you were taking a class on car engine restoration, would you demand that the instructor teach the chemical reaction that takes place when the fuel/air mixture is burnt in the cylinders? Of course not. It is enough for the class to understand that it DOES happen without getting into the mechanics of it.
So we agree that logic and an ordered and comprehensible universe are necessary to verify what we know. Good.
I said they are the best tools. There may be others that do not work as well. Lots of people get through life without being very logical...
How do you separate how we can verify what is true if we don't consider how it is even possible? Are you claiming that we must just a priori assume the logic and order?
See above...
You said I wonder why and I asked if you did wonder why.
You: And yet the predictions science makes are accurate, I wonder why?
Me: Do you wonder why?
You: Because they are right?
Me: Begging the question.
They make predictions that are accurate...why...because they are right.
That is begging the question. They also make predictions that are not accurate. The point is that there is indeed a true and false and that is how we know knowledge.
It would be begging the question if we were checking the results against themselves. We are not. We are checking them against reality. I can come up with a scientific theory, and I can determine this theory based on data I have gathered in the past. Let's use ballistics as an example. I can look at data I gathered, in which I recorded the angle of launch, the speed the object was launched at and where it landed. Using this, I can construct a theory which allows me to predict where the object will land in other situations. But I can go out and use my theory to make predictions about things that have not happened yet. I am NOT just checking my theory against the same data I used to form the theory in the first place. I can apply the theory to the real world and TEST it.
And if the theory gives accurate information each time, it is support that the theory is correct.
How do you not get this?
Yes. Otherwise theories wouldn't be accepted and then falsified.
If they always gave accurate information, how would we have ever discovered that they were false? We discover that a theory is false BECAUSE it gives inaccurate data.
Yes it is. And the funny thing is that I explained WHY it is irrelevant, and you agreed with me.
I would agree. My point was that even if it can be demonstrated to be true as in scientific theories, it has been later shown to be false. So at the time it was thought that the something was true and demonstrated to be true but then later was shown to be false when more information was available.
Did you forget what I said?
"In what situation would a person NOT be foolish to hold onto a particular viewpoint once that viewpoint has been shown to be false?"
If a person holds Belief X, and then it is demonstrated to them that Belief X is wrong, it is foolish for that person to continue thinking that Belief X is correct.
If you believe I have brown eyes, and then I show you evidence to prove that I have blue eyes, then it is foolish for you to continue to believe that I have brown eyes.
Do you agree or disagree with this? Yes or no?
How did I miss your point?
Because I was saying that things will be true regardless of whether there are any observers to know that they are true. Stars will form roughly spherical shapes, regardless of whether there is anyone to observe those stars. The freezing point of water will be zero degrees, regardless of whether there is anyone there to watch it freeze and measure the temperature.
And you didn't seem to comprehend that this was my point, and instead seemed to think I was commenting on how we can make true or false statements.
What does arrogance have to do with necessity?
I am saying that we know that A will still be A even if we weren't around to observe it, because we know that our presence is not required for A to be A. Anyone who thinks that A would NOT be A if we were absent would be arrogant.
Thus, I believe that A will still be A in the absence of me because I am not so arrogant to think my presence is required for A to be A.
