 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Logic and the laws of science
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Jun 16 - 01:25 AM In a previous thread, I posted what i thought about logic, and I didn't get much of a response. Here's what I said:
Posted By: Joe Offer 25-May-16 - 06:40 PM Thread Name: BS: Fall of Religion UK/Christians now a minority Subject: RE: BS: Fall of Religion UK/Christians now a minority
OK, humo(u)r me while I think out loud about this "intelligent design" thing. I've always been a big fan of logic, and I'm convinced that everything in life follows logical rules. We may not yet understand those rules, but I believe there will come a day when we come to understand that the processes we do not understand, are actually quite logical. Things happen, and they have logical consequences. Only one person, Stu, responded. Maybe I should take that as an indication that what I was saying was boring, but I thought I'd try again. Here's what Stu said (his comments on other topics deleted):
Posted By: Stu 26-May-16 - 02:54 PM Thread Name: BS: Fall of Religion UK/Christians now a minority Subject: RE: BS: Fall of Religion UK/Christians now a minority
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Jun 16 - 01:40 AM Maybe I didn't understand Stu, or maybe he was assuming that because I said something about an Intelligent Designer, that I was trying to prove that a Designer existed. I was just talking about logic. As I see it, logic is more-or-less a verbal form of mathematics, a systematic way of outlining cause and effect. If conditions for two events are the same, then the result should be the same. Now, logic depends on premises. If people don't agree on the premises, then they won't agree on conclusions. People may follow the rules of logic absolutely; but if they posit the existence of a Prime Mover or Intelligent Designer, they will come to vastly different conclusions from those of people who do not accept those premises. Nonetheless, logic is an essential tool for separating fact from opinion. Now, it seems to me that science and nature don't have opinions, so the processes of science and nature should follow logic quite absolutely. And therefore, I would conclude that the laws of science and nature are strictly logical. Our views of science and nature may differ, but the realities of science and nature are completely logical. Or am I wrong? As for a Prime Mover or Intelligent Designer, I'll just leave that question open because I see it as a personal opinion that can be neither proved or disproved - so it's better left alone. I think we can all live quite well without having an answer to that question, and we'll get along better if we accept the fact that intelligent people have varying opinions on that question. Back to logic - I suppose it's old-fashioned, superseded by the Law of the Internet: that he who is loudest, most dramatic, and most verbose - is right. I don't accept that law. I prefer logic. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: DMcG Date: 04 Jun 16 - 09:02 AM Plenty to say on this one, but i am out and about so can't really. But i see logic as a aeriea of rules for manipulating symbols. It may happen to be useful for describing "the real world" but there is no necessity for either to follow the other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Ed T Date: 04 Jun 16 - 09:02 AM Logic+facts+chaos+uncertainity+conjecture+filling in the blanks. "I would like to see anyone, prophet, king or God, convince a thousand cats to do the same thing at the same time." ― Neil Gaiman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Jun 16 - 09:14 AM Philosophers have tackled this for millennia. Looking at events in the natural world, how things change, you can find overviews of those opinions from author's like Donald Worster in his tome Nature's Economy, dealing with natural history over ~ the last 3-400 years and the view of how things change once one discards the "hand of god" as a factor. Pass over that with Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and you have an evolution of opinions, or paradigm shifts. None of them assign a role to an "unseen hand" of a deity. At least, none of them taken seriously by anyone else. From Selborne to String, it's all human observation and trying to figure out the story behind what we see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Will Fly Date: 04 Jun 16 - 09:50 AM We're drawn to see a pattern in everything - that's the way our brains work - and concepts like "logic" and "reason" and "rules" seem to be a logical outcome of that pattern-making tendency. But I think the world/nature around us demonstrates too much chaos and haphazardness for those concepts to hold ultimate sway. What we like to call the "Laws of Nature" may apply at the micro level but, at the macro level - galaxies, star systems - there's a deal of unknowingness. I don't believe in Intelligent Design. To me, it's simply a back door method of persuading people that there is a supreme being who had some hand in our creation, and I think the theory was adequately and completely demolished by Richard Dawkins (in "The Blind Watchmaker"). I'm aware that some people on this forum have little or no time for Dawkins and his theories, believing him to be a fanatic. I happen to have met him and talked with him, and found him to be one of the sanest and most perceptive of people. And - irony of ironies - logical! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Ed T Date: 04 Jun 16 - 09:57 AM "There are only patterns, patterns on top of patterns, patterns that affect other patterns. Patterns hidden by patterns. Patterns within patterns. If you watch close, history does nothing but repeat itself. What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we can't decipher. what we can't understand we call nonsense. What we can't read we call gibberish. There is no free will. There are no variables." ― Chuck Palahniuk |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Will Fly Date: 04 Jun 16 - 10:09 AM Rather a gnomic set of statements! How can we prove that chaos is "just patterns we haven't recognised" if there is no recognition to be made and all we can see is the chaos? It's a personal conjecture. Still, who am I to get in to a fight with the author of "Fight Club!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Jun 16 - 10:25 AM Much of quantum physics defies logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Ed T Date: 04 Jun 16 - 10:35 AM How can we prove that chaos is "just patterns we haven't recognised? An interesting, if nit odd statement in itself. How does anyone actually "prove" anything? Well, much of what we understand today, was once not understood, and may have seen to be chaotic and without pattern. Take, for example, weather. It likely seemed like chaos to ancient s, with no patterns. As our knowledge and understanding of weather increased, patterns emerged that were not chaotic at all. Scientists themselves now claim to see various patterns in much that science used to, and some still define as chaos. BTW, one could have some interesting perspective for consideration, regardless of what he/she authored, or whether they play a french horn in their spare time;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 04 Jun 16 - 10:44 AM Sounds like new think. Patterns in near symmetry opposing other patterns with their own mirrored properties (that connect and hold things together) in an order that, while it obeys laws, is random. Its like two sets of space in balance with two sets of matter create an order but allows for lots of new randomness. One set of opposites has no randomness like a mirror offers no randomness, just a near perfect reflection. So there is order but not in the way we used to think of it. Now here is where my brain gets stuck...blown away...shocked. When randomness becomes too impossible, space time like a fluid takes the path of least resistance and branches off. The conservation of energy law must be obeyed so the impossible space time main branch disappears and only the new branch exists. or both branches exist... or all branching multiverses in all new and ye to be dimensions of time include every possibility. Side note: everyone of these ideas including life itself exists with and in the shape of the SPIRAL. No matter the path it takes it is an intelligent design but in and of itself it is not an intelligent designer. Besides, existence takes at least two sets of two. If not it is just a reflection without the freedom of randomness. So CHUCK, TAKE THAT AND SHOVE IT> There are variables, randomness and free will. The only place free will does not exist is in a linear dimension. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Ed T Date: 04 Jun 16 - 10:46 AM "Much of quantum physics defies logic." Would it be more accurate to say, "defies what was once seen as logic, from a scientific perspective". One result, is the boundaries of scientific logic in physics has since (seemed to have) moved with this increased knowledge, (though understanding is still rather incomplete). When this happens, quite often, humans fill in the blanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Ed T Date: 04 Jun 16 - 10:58 AM Like I used to tell my science collegues who attempted to explain science to the public, "there is an easy way to state everything to different audiences, why take the complex road?" "Besides, existence takes at least two sets of two" Ummm, maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the context. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Jun 16 - 02:01 PM What's the difference between logic and mathematics? To my mind, logic is mathematics expressed in words, and mathematics is logic expressed in numbers. Am I wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 04 Jun 16 - 04:41 PM Figures don't lie unless some guy fudges with a cosmological constant or when liars figure. Randomness is at the core of existence. At least that is what quantum theory perfectly suggests. If we wanted to believe the logic of math, one of Einstein's equations regarding super gravity if carried out to the end, ends with infinity + infinity for infinity - then we would accept this answer. Math Science refuses to accept any answer that ends with infinity. Math describes relationships and interactions that reliably obey certain rules we call laws but there are small exceptions even in the nuclear force. Science is recognizing that the classical model is either wrong or missing some critical parts. There are field theories that are trying to take up the slack until the really invisible stuff can be verified. Some people weild intelligent design like an ax.Not even science has the last word. If there are ultimate answers they are part of the journey in time. Enjoy the journey I suspect there will be no ultimate answer or energy that is everlasting, instead there will be eternal change, even if that is not logical |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Will Fly Date: 04 Jun 16 - 04:44 PM Logic is a series of inductive reasonings - not necessarily contained within numbers - that lead from A to B, C, D, etc. One break in the chain - a questionable reasoning - and you have a questionable conclusion. With Mathematics, on the other hand, fixed rules dictate each step of a chain. The mathematics is either correct or incorrect, so the conclusion is either correct or incorrect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 04 Jun 16 - 05:05 PM Joe there is something I want to show you. By whatever means you choose, do a study of what is called the double slit electron beam experiment. It is old and famous. You will see with your own eyes how looking at something or even remotely measuring it - changes the entire experiment. It changes the randomness of beautiful multiple waves into just two plain lines. That is called a wave collapse function. So I was thinking; We have spent trillions of dollars watching and measuring people, foreign and domestic. I believe the resulting wave collapse reduces the randomness of behavior at a fundamental level. Please reply if you understand the consequences of this real phenomena in the realm of surveillance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 04 Jun 16 - 05:19 PM In sociology this is called the Hawthorn effect, which causes a reduction of randomness in a population. The loss of this organic looking array of possibilities reduced down to just two possibilities looks like a bad thing to me. Is it logical to think so? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Jun 16 - 05:24 PM Well, Donuel, I really tried to understand Wave Collapse Function this time and a few other times, but I have to admit that I got lost every time. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Paul Burke Date: 04 Jun 16 - 06:42 PM " if they posit the existence of a Prime Mover or Intelligent Designer, they will come to vastly different conclusions from those of people who do not accept those premises." End of discussion, really. If. Now start arguing why anyone should posit, or postulate (you can get cream for that) a Prime Mover, or even a prime mover. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 04 Jun 16 - 07:09 PM OK I will look for an animated version that makes it as clear as a Tom and Jerry cartoon. I was in 7th grade when I learned about the split beam experiment. It is 200 years old. Ah here it is Lets do it with big balls of silicon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw Now electron cartoons (not as good) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc When we go to measure we are collapsing the wave because we can not know the position AND direction at the same time. Collapsing the wave leaves us with a digital black or white result instead of an interference sum of all possibilities result. When we measure people we are in a very small way collapsing multiple possibilities. at least I had that crazy idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 04 Jun 16 - 07:21 PM A full documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBrsWPCp_rs |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Jun 16 - 02:17 AM Steer away from the Prime Mover and stick to logic, Paul. The absolutists on both sides have argued long enough about creation and convinced nobody. So, let't talk about something else, like....logic and the laws of science. I'm not convinced that Quantum Mechanics defies logic. I think we just haven't learned enough to understand its logic. Traditionally, computers have worked strictly according to the laws of logic. But in the last two or three decades, concepts like "fuzzy logic" have emerged that claim to go beyond the laws of logic - or do they? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Jun 16 - 02:38 AM It is hardly difficult to understand why anyone can posit a prime mover. A simple matter of it according to our experience of life and logical processes of thought. For every effect there must be a sufficient cause. If you do not accept that reasoning, end of discussion really. Now start arguing how anyone can postulate existence of a universe from nothing and no one.......that is, without redefining ...nothing... As krauss does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: DMcG Date: 05 Jun 16 - 03:17 AM On the questions of what the difference is between mathematics and logic, and whether quantum mechanics defies logic. As usual, words like 'logic' mean different things to different people. Very frequently, people use it for a series of statements that 'seem to make sense', but really this is what used to be called rhetoric, before that term was abused out of all meaning. When people doubt whether quantum mechanics is logical, they really mean they can't see how it makes sense. But this is nothing to with logic. In actuality, quantum mechanics is absolutely logical: from the starting observations like the two slit experiment and applying nothing but formal logic encapsulated in the mathematics, you end up at quantum mechanics. Nothing to do with 'it making sense', I'm afraid. The question of the relationship between mathematics and logic is an interesting one. To begin with, there is 'predicate logic', which is basically the same as the syllogisms of Socrates in an algebraic form. So taking something like: All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore Socrates is mortal this can clearly be generalised to: For all X and Y, All X are Y x is a X Therefore x is Y Add more symbols, like an upside-down A to mean 'for all', and a back-to-front E for 'there exists' you can turn this into a pure piece of algebra. In this sense, then logic is just one more branch of mathematics to set alongside geometry, topology, group theory and all the rest. Logic in this form is nothing to do with truth, it is all about pattern replacement. Common to all of these branches is a single key concept: Given a sequence of symbols containing a particular pattern, it can be replaced by a new sequence containing a transformed pattern. For example given the sequence A > B > C (using the conventional meaning of > to be be 'greater than') this can be replaced by the pattern A > C So one way of looking at mathematics is as a pattern replacement system. There are a large number of such replacement rules, and as a child we are taught that, for example, we can replace the pattern 2 + 2 by the simpler pattern 4, but there is no real concept of truth when you think of mathematics like this. Instead, there is a concept of consistency. The set of rules are consistent if, when properly applying them, they always end up with the same ultimate pattern. For example, in "ordinary arithmetic" if we applied the 2 + 2 pattern along with others to the sequence 2 + 2 + 2 we should end up with 6 whether we began be replacing the first 2 + 2 instance or the second. So mathematics, and in particular predicate logic, can be thought of as pattern replacement rules. ("Real mathematics", i.e. what people employed as mathematicians do, is not this: it is the development of the patterns in the first place) All of this is the branch of mathematics that I love and work with, known as 'pure mathematics'. Whether or not it has any relationship with 'the world' is irrelevant: it is what it is. "Applied mathematics" is essentially when you notice (or create) a mathematical model that is arelationship between mathematics and the observed world and make the assumption that given a good enough mathematical model, what the model predicts is what will be seen in the world. Fundamentally, that is flawed, even though all science depends upon it. You can never really be certain the model is good enough, which is why it is absolutely essential scientists are prepared to abandon or modify their theories (= their mathematical models) whenever a new observation is made that doesn't fit. The old model is still as mathematically valid as it ever was, it simply not longer adequately models the world. Back to quantum mechanics. A mathematical model has been built that very accurately describes and can predict what happens in the real world. It has been built using the pattern-replacement rules of logic and mathematics. It is 'logical'. But it does not correspond to 'common sense'. Why should it: that was never the goal! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Mr Red Date: 05 Jun 16 - 03:56 AM I had not yet nailed the right meaning of those car badges that depict a Christian fish, with legs and the word Darwin in the middle. I take it to be proclaiming Christian beliefs with Darwinian flavour Wiki say this too. ie not intelligent design. The logic that applies to "intelligent design" is quite simple. You believe and it becomes de facto. Evidence based science say "do the tests" then we accept your theory. But if better tests become available we shift emphasis". Beliefs in science usually result in red faces. Theories are not facts, they are open to disproving - but ya dun gotta have some good facts to support your tenet. Science "accepts" - religion "believes". Now prove me wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Jun 16 - 04:09 AM I think that science observes, and then builds rational conclusions based on those observations. Some religions substitute beliefs or extrapolation or the teachings of a sage, instead of scientific observation. I see value in the beliefs and teachings and extrapolations in the realm of spirituality and discussion of the meanings of things, but not when they are applied to the field of science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: DMcG Date: 05 Jun 16 - 07:33 AM There is a huge difference between 'belief' and 'unquestioning belief' and i don't there is a place for unquestioning belief in either science or religion. And it is not just about whether you have new evidence or not: you can come up with a better scientific theory by examining the evidence you have; new evidence is not always an essential. And the same is true of history and art, for example |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Stu Date: 05 Jun 16 - 08:33 AM Joe - I understood how you were using the example of an intelligent designer, and was just continuing to use your example, not me discussing your personal beliefs. "Now, logic depends on premises." From false premises, anything follows (someone here on the Cat said that, I can't remember who but I printed it and stuck it on my computer monitor). This is why starting an argument from a position of ignorance is a bad idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Tunesmith Date: 05 Jun 16 - 08:35 AM It's impossible for the average person to use his logic to explain so much that happens in our Universe. Is it logically that the Sun has been burning continuously for billions of years? Of course not! Is it logically that the Earth is a sphere? Don't be daft! Surely, anything on the underside of the sphere would fall off. Is it logical that an earthquake in Indonesia could result in huge waves killing people over a thousand mile away. That's crazy talk! No, using our so called logic brings us up short in so many areas of science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: mkebenn Date: 05 Jun 16 - 09:09 AM OOOOHHH,my head hurts. i've never accepted intelligent design, as it requires a designer. Now, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer,but it seem to me: A light colored bear will have a better chance of surviving on a snow pack and therefore reproducing than a darker colored bear. The lighter the cubs are, the better their odds, until you end up with white bears. Intelligent? Designed? I don't believe so, but logical as all hell. As far as quantum theory, I believe we are still in the infancy of our understanding, and what was sifi a generation ago is everyday knowledge now. Just 'cause we don't know it don't mean it aint so. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 05 Jun 16 - 11:51 AM Intelligent design = Hot Tub Time Machine II Hot Tub Time Machine II = Branching universe Ergo There is a fundamentally wrong premise behind both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Ebbie Date: 05 Jun 16 - 02:09 PM For lack of a better term I accept 'logic' to define something I have noted for more than 30 years: When one expects an outcome, an event, it happens. I have seen it demonstrated in my own life many times. Repeatedly. I tend to describe it as "getting into the stream'. I don't think it has anything at all to do with religion or with one's own quality of being or lifestyle- I think it happens to everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Jun 16 - 06:04 PM Mkebenn, you seem to have given the game away with your post. Ie, you don't accept intelligent design , because it implies a designer. Then you seem to confuse design with natural selection in your bears example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 05 Jun 16 - 06:37 PM Ebbie some would say the stream is an imaginary magical place. I don't. We have invented many words for this projected mode of consciousness. I usually call it in the wind, its drier than a stream. Physics is now calling it a field. Perhaps one day the field will be accredited with some kind of empirical evidence that won't make folks sound so crazy. Naval intelligence spent the better part of 50 million on it. Of course they spent more on toilets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Rapparee Date: 05 Jun 16 - 10:40 PM As Heraclitus is supposed to have said, "You can't step into the same stream twice." Logic is a frail reed, but it's better than nothing until it breaks. Cause and effect can be read as the effect being the cause. But I leave it to y'all to figure all that out -- I just know what I've experienced, and I don't have a problem with quantum physics OR much of anything else. As Buber wrote in "Daniel" (I paraphrase) "I can accept the whirlpool without reasoning out of existence." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Stu Date: 06 Jun 16 - 05:00 AM Er, not that I'm saying you were Joe, so apologies for my terrible phrasing when it comes to typing! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: mkebenn Date: 06 Jun 16 - 08:05 AM Pet from seven stars link. I'm not sure I understand. Perhaps I don't know what is meant by "intelligent design". I don't think there is a fate or destiny for our existence, that there is a path this world is headed. I always thought that change is wrought by natural selection and natural forces, be it animal, plant or geographic change. Water and ice change landscapes, climate change effects water levels. i don't see where these beliefs are consistent with a design, intelligent or otherwise. Ebbie, believe it or not, I've always, at least since '77 thought of that as the force, normally not out load. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Bill D Date: 06 Jun 16 - 11:19 AM I have been at a festival and missed this. I'll try to add more later, but for now I'll just say: Logic and its rules are NOT subjective inventions. They are inductive rules extracted from our awareness of our own experience. Formulations of them vary according to individual & language, but they are similar to rules of mathematics, in that they are above reference to content...... they are used to describe and manipulate content. We use math to measure, describe and understand the universe, and we use formal & informal logic to describe and understand our own processes of reasoning. No amount of logic can give us 'truth', but it can tell us if our reasoning processes have contradictions. It is 'possible' to reach *true* conclusions using bad logic, but this does not verify or justify bad logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Jun 16 - 09:34 PM That's what I'm looking for, Bill. Keep going. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 07 Jun 16 - 07:51 AM "Behold the great Boeing 747-800 almost a million pounds with miles of wired sensors and engines that can push the airliner halfway around the world. Sleek elegant design that only an intelligent designer could build. If a fierce tornado passed through warehouses and junk yards swirling with intense randomness you would never produce a 747 assembled and ready to fly. Never would the miles of wound wire and turbine blades coalesce on their own. It would take a creator, it would take a miracle". This is Hoyle's fallacy, also known as the Junkyard tornado, describes a hypothetical tornado that passes through a hypothetical junkyard resulting in chaos. Proponents of Intelligent Design erroneously assume that because the ensuing chaos does not produce some sort of complex, man-made device (for example, a Boeing 747), that various processes of evolution, abiogenesis or other origins theory are equally unlikely. The "Tornado in a Junkyard" analogy is an example of an argument by false analogy, a logical fallacy. It is also an example of denying the antecedent: when confronted with the claim that adding energy to a system can give rise to complexity, creationists simply present an example of a situation where adding energy to a system does not give rise to complexity. In other words the 747 did evolve over billions of years first in matter and the elements then in conditions on an obscure planet where life forms learn the art of flight and the another species learns how to mimic that flight mechanically. The 747 is then created by engineers, workers and programed machines. It was created given the fullness of time, not in the instant violence of a tornado. Yep no doubt about it, it was created. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 07 Jun 16 - 08:06 AM Joe, It seems to me you might be trying to assemble a logical theory for intelligent design where others have failed. Other people's motivation is behind the veil of a willingness to share but that is where I think you are going. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 07 Jun 16 - 08:23 AM I have trouble organizing a two car parade but you Joe, who knows, you may succeed. If you think godthink/Gaia is intrinsically inside matter and space I would concentrate on the relationship between the harmonies and opposing intervals as in chordal music. Living music from the original song. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Rapparee Date: 07 Jun 16 - 11:24 AM Logic itself postulates nothing. It is simply reasoning which allows you to come to correct conclusions (assuming you keep it within the rules). People do the postulating and then apply the rules as they are aware of them. Thus, 1.X = Y 2.Y = Z 3.X = Z is just as valid as 1.X = Y 2.Y ≠ Z 3.X ≠ Z The problems arise when the syllogisms must express conditionals: 1. All X = Y 2. Some Y = Z 3. Therefore some X = Z But unspoken is "but not all X = Z" and when we attempt to ignore that we get into trouble. Check out https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/ for a list of common logical fallacies |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 07 Jun 16 - 12:51 PM flawed social logic; guns don't kill people, people do and in the case of rape, men don't rape women, alcohol does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Janie Date: 07 Jun 16 - 03:38 PM Uhmmm - Not sure why Donuel and a couple of others keep thinking Joe is making an argument for Intelligent Design. I thought his OP was pretty clear. I addition, in a later post he stated clearly he is not weighing in on that debate. Like you, Joe, I'm eager to read more of what Bill D. may contribute. I've stayed out of this thread hoping Bill would offer his knowledge and perspective. I don't know enough to contribute but have been reading and hope Bill returns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 07 Jun 16 - 04:11 PM Ok donuel, if I follow your argument......hoyles analogy is invalid, and that the 747 only appears after the eons of evolution. I would argue that the analogy is even stronger now, than it was then. Since then, the cell and the DNA code is known to be far more complex than perhaps any engineering marvel. The difference is , is that evolutionism thinks that time , given enough millennia will be its saviour. Perhaps they think that given enough time , tornadoes or whatever would produce a 747, or something equally or more so designed. Or to use Dawkins words ...having the appearance of being designed ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 07 Jun 16 - 08:01 PM The god made tornado 747 is even more ambitious than the claim that man domesticated Jurassic dinosaurs 6000 years ago. Saddles and all. Ya Hooo I found the Hoyles fallacy in Wiki referring to this tornado plane story. Human DNA is not that complex except for the historic hidden codes and the protein making instructions. Some worms have more chromosomes than humans. Joe admits creationism is divisive but I only offered my speculation as to possible personal motivation. Hey Joe, say it ain't so. BTW if there is a Gaia it made man to make technology to protect Earth from asteroids, otherwise the risk benefit by humans is not worth it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Bill D Date: 07 Jun 16 - 10:44 PM It's been a looong few days..... I'll try to add some things, but I hate doing the Reader's Digest version of important concepts. If I tell you that 'water runs downhill' and that 'gardens need water'... and then say, 'therefore, you can't grow a garden at the top of a hill', almost everyone would jump in and say, "but you're missing something, because there are other ways to get water on a garden". I could invent a dozen of that sort of silly (read-invalid) arguments that are obviously wrong. I could say, 'Turnips smell like roses' and 'magnesium is heavier than lead', therefore Trump should be elected president.... and (almost) everyone would say," but those assertions are not only wrong. but they have nothing to do with the political situation!".........Yet, people make less obvious, but still just as fallacious, arguments everyday.... (and some who want Trump elected 'might' even say "right on!") Now if I ask "WHY are those things bad logic?", most people would could give generally similar reasons, but phrased very differently and not...ummm.. 'tight'..... but logicians & philosophers have worked out the specific things that define valid arguments. They do this partly by **induction**.... meaning that they look at obviously good arguments and obviously bad arguments and 'extract' the common elements of each. Then they work to state those rules as clearly & unambiguously as possible. It might help to read about New Eleusis, a card game based on one player choosing a set of rules, and the others trying to figure them out from trying various plays and being told whether the plays are legal or not, based on the secret rule. (simple example...'a red face card must always be followed by a black non-face card.') I have played the game, and it ain't easy to invent a rule that is fair, not too easy, and not too hard. Some people take to the game, and some hate it! As Rap showed above, there are fairly formal ways, similar to mathematics, to show whether simple ABC syllogisms are valid or not, even when the 'truth' of the conclusion in debated..("well, I may not have used the right proof, but I KNOW the answer is correct") There are also a lot of rules (the exact number varies) that deal with mistakes in just everyday human attempts to explain, defend or attack some idea or conclusion. These are harder to pin down than the rules of formal logic, and are called informal fallacies. and that page has about the longest list of them I have seen. Now, even when you study and analyze them for years, it can still be hard to take someone's 'bothersome' assertion and extract the specific error...or combination of errors... involved. It is not that the rules are flawed, but that the assertions are not usually 'formal'... they are expressions in ordinary language, expressed in arbitrary ways, often using 'loaded' words that people don't always agree about the exact definition.... (and this is one of the most common fallacies..equivocation... using a word differently than its usually accepted way.) Read some of the example on the page noted above.... some are obvious.. some are not... and the very expression OF the specific fallacy can be hard to get agreement about...However... they do describe classic ways people commonly twist 'common sense' in trying to make some point. The rules are correct, even if it is hard to figure out when and in what ways any specific rule is being broken. ...Now I don't dare re-read this, as I will find problems with my own explanations.... and it needs pages of examples for clarification. A good exercise is to take political speeches... or children's excuses when they get in trouble... and try to figure out which FORMAL and/or INFORMAL rules are being broken. None of this automatically leads you to **truth**, but it can sure point out when two or more **versions** of truth cannot possibly be correct, and when any ONE version is improperly stated and/or defended. *gasp*... that's my stream of consciousness for tonight... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jun 16 - 12:54 AM 'Tain't so, Donuel. I'm saying that there is an intrinsic logic in the way the universe works. If I were proposing a theory of intelligent design, then I would say that some outside force made things in such a fashion that they work; or that the force made up the rules that things have to follow. A round wheel rolls, and can perform many functions because of that property. A square wheel won't do the job. I can use logic and extrapolate from that function of rolling, and invent many things. And if I have an understanding of other functions and properties, I can combine those functions in a logical fashion and invent even more. Trial-and-error is another method of invention, but it is usually far less efficient than logic. And for almost every process that exists, we can usually eventually come up with a logical understanding of that process - and there is usually a logical interrelation between processes. The more we study, the more we find that things are interrelated. The same goes for just about everything - everything seems to have a logic to it. The more I learn about the periodic table, the more sense it makes to me. Same with music, and the same with the development of language. In the end, it seems that it all makes sense. So, what is the logic of a chord? Why does a major chord affect me the way it does, and why does a minor chord affect me differently? Why is it that I can tell when a note doesn't fit into a chord? I do have a subversive reason for asking this question, Donuel. It has to do with a homeless shelter. I'm part of a group that worked very hard to transform a vacant county jail into a homeless shelter, and we're encountering a lot of opposition from people who live in the general area. They make all sorts of claims about the shelter endangering their lives and their children's lives. To them, it seems that the shelter is a cause of homelessness or at least a magnet that draws homeless people to our community. To me, that just doesn't seem logical - but I have to develop logical but diplomatic arguments to refute them. And in this Age of Trump / Age of the Internet, logic seems to be forgotten. I figure I gotta hone my skills. |
