Tricks New Atheists and Theists Play (Part 1)

[Tree of Life]

My stance is that nothing is proven scientifically. Proof is really the purview of math and liquor, and to a certain extent logic while science doesn't deal in proof nor is scientific proof a thing.

That's fine. I bet there are still un-mathematical truths that you accept. So even if you don't believe you have proof for these things, at some point they became persuasive enough for you to accept them. And at this point I don't see the functional difference between proof and whatever it is that you have.

 

[Tree of Life]

False dichotomy.

It was actually a question. What's a third option for these propositions?

 

[Tree of Life]

A follow up question would be whether "proof" is necessary for knowledge.

You cannot prove that you ate what you ate for breakfast last Tuesday. But does this mean you cannot know what you ate for breakfast last Tuesday?

 

[durangodawood]

If you deny premise 1 then my logical inference is not a proof to you. I imagine it would be difficult to prove many other things to you that would be commonly accepted.

Maybe.

But I'm no longer confident about what "proof" should mean.

As I noted earlier: maybe what the paper author means by "proof" is just "highly convincing".

 

[Tree of Life]

Maybe.

But I'm no longer confident about what "proof" should mean.

As I noted earlier: maybe what the paper author means by "proof" is just "highly convincing".

Do you not believe that modus tollens proves a negative?

 

[Tree of Life]

Here's an uncontroversial example of modus tollens:

1. If and only if my professor is sick today, then class is cancelled.
2. Class is not cancelled.
3. Therefore my professor is not sick today.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It was actually a question. What's a third option for these propositions?

Quite true. My mistake.

I have no opinion on these premises until you support them with evidence.

 

[Tree of Life]

Quite true. My mistake.

I have no opinion on these premises until you support them with evidence.

If you do not accept the premises then my syllogism is not a logical proof for you. I assume that most people would accept these premises though.

 

[durangodawood]

Do you not believe that modus tollens proves a negative?

Not per the unicorn example in the paper. For the obvious reason that....

"2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record"

But we discover new species in the fossil record all the time.

(Maybe he abused modus tollens, I dont know.)

 

[ToddNotTodd]

A follow up question would be whether "proof" is necessary for knowledge.

You cannot prove that you ate what you ate for breakfast last Tuesday. But does this mean you cannot know what you ate for breakfast last Tuesday?

Are you using “know” as in “has knowledge of”?

 

[Tree of Life]

Not per the unicorn example in the paper. For the obvious reason that....

"2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record"

We discover new species in the fossil record all the time.

(Maybe he abused modul tollens, I dont know.)

He is using modus tollens correctly, but premise 1 is very spurious. Why should it be that all species that ever existed made it into the fossil record? Because we would not accept premise 1, his use of modus tollens is logically valid, but potentially veridically unsound and inadequate to convince us.

However, so long as premises 1 and 2 both obtain, modus tollens effectively proves a negative statement.

 

[Tree of Life]

Are you using “know” as in “has knowledge of”?

I'm using "know" in the technical, epistemological sense.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If you do not accept the premises then my syllogism is not a logical proof for you. I assume that most people would accept these premises though.

Did I say I didn’t accept them? No, no I didn’t.

And proof is for alcohol and math, not Philosophy.

And why would I care that other people might accept your premises? Do you believe that the more people believe your premises, the more likely they are to be true?

 

[Nithavela]

This could theoretically be proven if we were able to gain an adequately exhaustive knowledge of Jupiter's orbit. It could also be logically inferred:

1. If a teapot is orbiting Jupiter then it came from planet earth.
2. No teapot has ever been sent from planet earth to Jupiter.
3. Therefore a teapot is not orbiting Jupiter.

Which premise would you challenge?

The first one. You cant prove that earth is the only source for teapots in the universe (that, again, would be proving a negative).

Also the second. You cant prove that there never was a secret nasa mission to shoot a tea pot towards jupiter.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm using "know" in the technical, epistemological sense.

Then no, I don’t know what I ate for breakfast last Tuesday.

Do you?

 

[durangodawood]

Here's an uncontroversial example of modus tollens:

1. If and only if my professor is sick today, then class is cancelled.
2. Class is not cancelled.
3. Therefore my professor is not sick today.

The form works so long as we stipulate the truth of the premises.

 

[Tree of Life]

Did I say I didn’t accept them? No, no I didn’t.

You said you had no opinion concerning them. I assume that means that you neither accept nor reject them. Did you mean something different?

And proof is for alcohol and math, not Philosophy.

Logical proofs are possible, necessary, and quite compelling. If A then B. A. Therefore B. That's a logical proof. So long as premises A and B obtain, conclusion C is necessary.

And why would I care that other people might accept your premises? Do you believe that the more people believe your premises, the more likely they are to be true?

No. But proof has to do with persuasion and acceptance. Proof matters because it actually has an affect on how people think and live.

 

[Tree of Life]

Then no, I don’t know what I ate for breakfast last Tuesday.

Do you?

I would say that I do. I believe that memories can be justifications for knowledge.

 

[Nithavela]

"Proof" is somewhat subjective.

Wrong again.

 

[Nithavela]

Here's an uncontroversial example of modus tollens:

1. If and only if my professor is sick today, then class is cancelled.
2. Class is not cancelled.
3. Therefore my professor is not sick today.

Never heard of substitute teachers?