The Creationist method..

[Vorkosigan]

And how do you show the connections?

You simply can't get away from the *assumption* of basic logic. I don't think it's possible to make the world go without it.

In my earlier posts I clearly explained that the usefulness and reliability of basic logic is not an assumption, but something that humans understood better as they interacted with the world. See my post on the previous page about positive feedback loops.

I agree that logic is fundamental, basic, and innate. Logic is a basic element of reciprocal exchange systems that dominate so many primate interactions. Take conditionals -- "If I share in the hunt, I can get some of the meat" which leads to logical conclusions like "If Grog is eating meat, he must have participated in the hunt." I will then need numerous identification and memory devices, so I can figure out where Grog was when the hunt was going on, and see if he is cheating on our contract. It is an experimentally verified fact that humans solve identical logic problems more easily if they are presented as problems involving people's behavior rather than as abstractions like ~p and p. This is because we are evolved to think about our fellow human beings and their behavior.

Vorkosigan

 

[Redeemed1]

Oh my gosh. My ears are bleeding. I just can't take this conversation anymore. I'm leaving. I need a good dose of conversational "fluff"...then I'll come back.

 

[psycmajor]

In case someone didn't say this already (too lazy to swim through the posts!):
The first box is the inductive method.
The second box is the adversarial method.

I think non-creationists can be adversarial as well...they have often already decided what they think truth is, despite any contrary evidence.

I've promoted this book in the "Faith vs. Evidence" forum in the general apologics section:

The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

Give the Bible a fair day in court. And like in the justice system, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.