Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[VinceBlaze]

Vince, this whole side topic of the thread got started when you said that your logic may not be scientific, but it is still valid. I said that this was an absurd statement: if the logic is not scientific logic, then it is invalid logic, because the rules of logic are not specific to science. The rules of logic are the same everywhere.

Your statement directly contradicts itself.

if the logic is not scientific logic, then it is invalid logic

the rules of logic are not specific to science

Which is it?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Your statement directly contradicts itself.

if the logic is not scientific logic, then it is invalid logic

the rules of logic are not specific to science

Which is it?

I think what he is saying is that there is no difference between "logic" and "scientific logic," that if a conclusion is logically sound then it can't be unscientific or whatever.

 

[Chalnoth]

I think what he is saying is that there is no difference between "logic" and "scientific logic," that if a conclusion is logically sound then it can't be unscientific or whatever.

Precisely.

 

[VinceBlaze]

I think what he is saying is that there is no difference between "logic" and "scientific logic," that if a conclusion is logically sound then it can't be unscientific or whatever.

Two questions that I might ask:

1. Is 'logic' specific to science (localized)?

2. Or is 'logic' universal (not science-specific)?

 

[Chalnoth]

That has been answered.

 

[VinceBlaze]

That has been answered.

I think that you've actually answered a subtle variation of the questions. But I have altered some very fine details to the questions.

 

[VinceBlaze]

I believe that it may be valid to assert that your 'logical ruleset' is specific to science. But it would be invalid to assert that the 'logical ruleset' of science is (or should be) applicable to non-scientific realms.

 

[Chalnoth]

I believe that it may be valid to assert that your 'logical ruleset' is specific to science. But it would be invalid to assert that the 'logical ruleset' of science is (or should be) applicable to non-scientific realms.

I disagree under both accounts. There is only one set of rules of logic. The rules of logic place limits upon the ways in which one can go from a set of premises to a conclusion. These rules are independent of whether the argument is used in science or outside of it.

Science does add additional stipulations to the premises and conclusions about whether or not arguments are useful to science. This won't say anything about validity of an argument, just whether or not it is useful in the context of science.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Two questions that I might ask:

1. Is 'logic' specific to science (localized)?

2. Or is 'logic' universal (not science-specific)?

If forced to choose, the second.

Logic is, most basically, a way of constructing arguments such that sound conclusions always follow from true premises and valid structure. An argument like:

All YEC are creationists.
Ken Ham is a YEC.
Therefore, Ken Ham is a creationist.

does not invoke science per se, but it has the form of a scientifically usable argument:

All Homo sapiens are hominins.
Ken Ham is a Homo sapien.
Therefore, Ken Ham is a hominin.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Logic is, most basically, a way of constructing arguments such that sound conclusions always follow from true premises and valid structure.

that is an example of a principle from a particular logic.
in particular a syllogism from deductive logic.
logics are a much more comprehensive topic than mere rhetoric or even sound reasoning.

 

[VinceBlaze]

I disagree under both accounts. There is only one set of rules of logic.

And who designed these rules? A scientist?

Science does add additional stipulations to the premises and conclusions about whether or not arguments are useful to science.

Scientists like lots of rules. What can I say? Without rules, how can we place the universe into a small little box? The more rules, the better. I am in control.

 

[VinceBlaze]

If forced to choose, the second.

Logic is, most basically, a way of constructing arguments such that sound conclusions always follow from true premises and valid structure.

I believe that this is rarely actually the case.

Taking somewhat of a hardcore agnostic stance, I believe that all logical arguments are essentially flawed at their core roots. Every logical argument breaks down with enough scrutiny, if we are only willing to question the certainty of our most stringent beliefs. We just need to splice down the most stringent of our logical assertions into their finest component parts, and they will eventually fall apart. We are all ignorant beasts.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Logic is, most basically, a way of constructing arguments such that sound conclusions always follow from true premises and valid structure.

that is an example of a principle from a particular logic.
in particular a syllogism from deductive logic.
logics are a much more comprehensive topic than mere rhetoric or even sound reasoning.

Logically something may stand true, but practically it may not.

 

[Tomk80]

Logically something may stand true, but practically it may not.

Which is exactly why logic is not limited to, or specific for science.

Logic applies to many areas other then science, for example philosophy or theology. It is not a system of thought designed by scientists, although it is applied by them.

Scientifically, if something is logically true but practically not, we always find that it is the premises that are incorrect, not the logical chain of reasoning.

 

[Chalnoth]

Scientists like lots of rules. What can I say? Without rules, how can we place the universe into a small little box? The more rules, the better. I am in control.

Ugh. I find this a horrible statement. These rules don't apply to the universe. They apply to us. The rules of logic do not put us in control of anything external, they force us to retain self control.

The rules of logic, which are used not only by science but also many other disciplines, are used within science as a means to constrain our thought processes as much as possible so that we don't spend time spinning our wheels, as it were.

For example, if I construct an argument:
If I measure a voltage of 3.3V in this $10 billion detector, then I will have detected the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Clearly this argument is a non sequitur: the detection of this voltage does not imply the exstence of the FSM. Therefore such an experiment should never get funding, and we should spend our money on experiments based upon logically valid arguments.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I believe that this is rarely actually the case.

Taking somewhat of a hardcore agnostic stance, I believe that all logical arguments are essentially flawed at their core roots. Every logical argument breaks down with enough scrutiny, if we are only willing to question the certainty of our most stringent beliefs. We just need to splice down the most stringent of our logical assertions into their finest component parts, and they will eventually fall apart. We are all ignorant beasts.

Radical skepticism is no more justifiable than any other approach. How does your 'hardcore agnosticism' stand up to its own scrutiny?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Ugh. I find this a horrible statement. These rules don't apply to the universe. They apply to us. The rules of logic do not put us in control of anything external, they force us to retain self control.

Actually, you had referred to two different sets of rules. Firstly the rules of logic, and secondly some additional rules of science. Hence, the rules of logic more correctly constrain you, whereas your additional rules of science instead constrain the universe. Lotsa constraint going on.

The rules of logic, which are used not only by science but also many other disciplines, are used within science as a means to constrain our thought processes as much as possible so that we don't spend time spinning our wheels, as it were.

It seems to me that you're into a lot of constraints. Perhaps more than practically necessary. These constraints may serve you well in your personal endeavors, but it's best to be slow when projecting these requirements on the minds of others.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Radical skepticism is no more justifiable than any other approach.

Luckily, I have no need to justify it to anyone. Unless of course, you feel such a need.

Some may perhaps prefer 'non-radical' skepticism after a conformist fashion. However, even 'radical' skepticism is quite commonly accepted as 'non-radical' in the circles from whence it originates. What's 'radical' to you may be commonplace to another. It's all about perception and what we're pre-accustomed to. What is strange to us is 'radical', but what we're pre-accustomed to is not.

How does your 'hardcore agnosticism' stand up to its own scrutiny?

It's own scrutiny or yours? There's a difference.

Do you have a particular case that you'd like to advance? Or are you merely speaking in general?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Which is exactly why logic is not limited to, or specific for science.

Logic applies to many areas other then science, for example philosophy or theology. It is not a system of thought designed by scientists, although it is applied by them.

Scientifically, if something is logically true but practically not, we always find that it is the premises that are incorrect, not the logical chain of reasoning.

I fully agree.

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually, you had referred to two different sets of rules. Firstly the rules of logic, and secondly some additional rules of science. Hence, the rules of logic more correctly constrain you, whereas your additional rules of science instead constrain the universe. Lotsa constraint going on.

No, they don't. They only constrain what scientists look at. And the constraint really isn't a constraint at all: it's merely a requirement that experiments be repeatable, and theories be testable experimentally. In other words, the only constraint is that science attempts to describe reality.

It seems to me that you're into a lot of constraints. Perhaps more than practically necessary. These constraints may serve you well in your personal endeavors, but it's best to be slow when projecting these requirements on the minds of others.

And what, pray tell, are scientists missing?