What About Logic?

[funyun]

Now, I want to let everyone who reads this thread know, that I am not arguing or trying to embarrase or out-do anyone who believes in evolution.

I'm just asking a question, because I don't know something, and I hope someone will be kind enough to help me. No negative comments.

Okay?

Alright....
Some of you may have heard things like "ireducible complexity", and things like "What are the chances of such and such being an accident?"

Well, use of these arguments doesn't use the aprove scientific method. But it does us logic.

I was wondering, and I'm not asking in any demeaning way--

is there a place for pure logic when considering evolution or creationism?

Just a guy wanting to know.

In my experience "irreducible complexity" and the multitude of probability arguments originate out of a lack of understand of evolutionary biology and mathematical probabilities themselves, respectively. They are all designed to be incredibly misleading in the way they are worded and presented. For example, irreducible complexity builds a strawman by acting as though evolution tacs on physical attributes, like wings, or teeth, one by one, in the "final form" in which they appear. Mathematical probability arguments tend to both blatantly disregard space and time, which is misleading in several ways; they use Big Number versus 1, which would signify a single action, not trillions across vast expanses of space and incredibly long periods of time.

I have roamed these boards for about a year or so now, and I have not once seen a anti-evolution argument which rested on pure logic to not have been found fallacious. In the vast majority, the fallacy is obvious. Sometimes, the argument is clever and the fallacy tends to be less visible. But in my experience, there always is one.

I would also argue that many times these sorts of arguments rely on common sense, rather than logic itself, such as the "eye problem" as IDers see it. That's not logic, it's an incomplete understanding of evolution. Don't trust common sense.

 

[shinbits]

Yes, it is a valid logical statement. A valid logical statement is one that is a necessary conclusion of the premises. The statement is logically valid whether or not the premises are true.
.

I see what you're saying. Even if one or more premises are false, it can be a logical statement.

But going back to your example with the dog and the fleas, in order to properly use logic, you'd have to find out whether or not the first premise is true or not.

Something can be entirely logical yet still be incorrect if the assumptions are incorrect.

Assumption: All dogs have fleas.
Logic: Tycho is a dog, therefore Tycho has fleas.
.

If you know anything about logic tables, or truth tables as they're sometimes called, you may know that you can't just make a set of premises. You must first determine which premises are true or not. (I took philosophy in college. )

Since we know the statement "All dogs have fleas" is false, the conclusion "Tyco has fleas" is false. Even though Tyco may in fact have fleas, you cannot validly make that conclusion using logic tables.

So again, logic really is a great tool for answering questions.

Also,
Is it reasonable to say, that logic can be used for at least some scientific hypothisees made?

That's why I'm asking if logic can be used with regard to Intelligent Design.

(btw...isn't logic ever used in making valid points with evolution?)

 

[shinbits]

I would also argue that many times these sorts of arguments rely on common sense, rather than logic itself, such as the "eye problem" as IDers see it. That's not logic, it's an incomplete understanding of evolution. Don't trust common sense.

That's a good point also.

If we were to use properly used logic in regards to ID, what premises would we need, and how could we go about it, to either prove or disprove ID, using logic?

 

[Grengor]

That's where you run into trouble. You can't disprove ID. That's why it's being rejected as science.

 

[Dannager]

That's a good point also.

If we were to use properly used logic in regards to ID, what premises would we need, and how could we go about it, to either prove or disprove ID, using logic?

Intelligent Design is what is known as unfalsifiable in the scientific community. The ID hypothesis (it doesn't qualify as a theory) predicts that an unknown force spontaneously created. Since it can never be proven that an unknown force did not spontaneously create (just like Last Thursdayism can't be proven false), Intelligent Design does not qualify as falsifiable, and is therefore not able to become a scientific theory.

 

[USincognito]

is there a place for pure logic when considering evolution or creationism?

I know I'm late to this thread, but I'm going to say no. Navel gazing and philosophizing won't make geological record appear differently, species seem more or less interrelated or physiological and genetic evidences appear or disappear. The scientific method is the way it is for a reason and all the metaphysical discussions in the world won't make all the transitional fossils disappear.

 

[gluadys]

I see what you're saying. Even if one or more premises are false, it can be a logical statement.

But going back to your example with the dog and the fleas, in order to properly use logic, you'd have to find out whether or not the first premise is true or not.

If you know anything about logic tables, or truth tables as they're sometimes called, you may know that you can't just make a set of premises. You must first determine which premises are true or not. (I took philosophy in college. )

Right. I was just being picky on the proper use of vocabulary. An argument can be valid even if it isn't true. But in order to use logic to find truth, then you need premises that are true. Then, if the argument is valid, the conclusion will be both valid and true.

Since we know the statement "All dogs have fleas" is false, the conclusion "Tyco has fleas" is false. Even though Tyco may in fact have fleas, you cannot validly make that conclusion using logic tables.

So again, logic really is a great tool for answering questions.

Similarly since we know from observation that evolution happens, any argument which leads to the conclusion that it doesn't must have a false premise.

Also,
Is it reasonable to say, that logic can be used for at least some scientific hypothisees made?

That's why I'm asking if logic can be used with regard to Intelligent Design.

(btw...isn't logic ever used in making valid points with evolution?)

One uses logic both to make a scientific hypothesis and to draw out a testable prediction from the hypothesis. This can't be done with ID because one of its basic premises is the existence of an undefined designer for whom no test can be devised.

ID proponents have suggested testing for design, but I haven't seen any successful way to do that yet. The proposed "design filter" doesn't really work in practice.