 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Logic and the laws of science
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Stu Date: 08 Jun 16 - 04:17 AM "So, what is the logic of a chord?" A chord has no intrinsic logic of it's own, it is mathematics and physics. As to why we experience chords the way we do, I'm not sure we can use logic to answer that question. Logic is not like mathematics, physics or chemistry. These have universal constants that would be recognised by an alien species very different to ours (for instance H2O will be exactly the same on their plant as it is here). If these aliens were at the same technological level as us then they would have developed their own system of logic but this could be very different from human logic; we could share some of our rules of logic, but their system would be very, very different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Ebbie Date: 08 Jun 16 - 04:18 AM To follow that segue for a moment, Joe O, here in Juneau we recently built a temporary 'haven' house for female felons that are returning to society. There is a housemother, and lots of rules and follow up but some neighbors in the vicinity were vociferous in their objections, i.e. it is too close to a school, it will affect property values, our neighborhood will no longer be safe and it was such a nice neighborhood, there will be unsavory visitors, etc, etc. But the petition/permit passed and women moved in; so far there have been no difficulties reported. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: mkebenn Date: 08 Jun 16 - 07:58 AM Joe: I see nothing subversive in your plan at all, and logic is inapplicable to closed or bigoted minds. Best of luck in your endeavor. As one of my patron saints once wrote" There but for fortune go you or I." Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Stu Date: 08 Jun 16 - 09:34 AM Joe: To me it looks like you need some solid facts to back up your case. Perhaps look at crime figures within the vicinity of homeless areas and see if there is a correlation between the frequency of offences. Now correlation does not imply causation, but if this happens across the country it could be an indication that these shelters do not affect crime in any way, and the residents fears are baseless. Do the local coppers have anything to say on the subject? Can you appeal to the compassion of the locals? Point out a community needs to look after it's most vulnerable? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Bill D Date: 08 Jun 16 - 10:35 AM Joe... you need to hone in on the exact claims made in opposition to the shelter. When someone makes an assertion like.."...the shelter is a cause of homelessness or at least a magnet that draws homeless people to our community. ". you need to ask them the basis for their concern and draw out the evidence... if any... they might have. One counter is: "There are already homeless people here. A shelter not only gets them away from street corners & doorways, improving the 'look' of the community, but it also make it easier for social service workers to find and interact with the homeless in order to help them escape poverty. In a shelter, they can feel safer and 'clean up' and have a base to look for work...etc." Now, as already noted, some people simply, flatly do not want to deal with the problem... "NIMBY"! (Not in MY backyard) In such cases, all the logic in the world is useless, so logic must be directed toward those who have authority and/or community respect. I don't know whether the use of the old jail is supported by anyone who has authority over it, or whether some sort of 'vote' by the community would be involved, but you might try to find other communities where similar ventures have proved feasible and get some positive testimonials. And yes....you example in your reply to Donuel make perfect sense.... the 'logic' of science is built in. Everything above the sub-atomic level happens according to rules... not arbitrary rules assigned by some outside force, but simply automatic processes which, when looked at closely, cannot be otherwise. When certain combinations of elements in certain proportions 'happen', stars are born and all sorts of stuff just happens. 'Life' itself MUST happen given certain conditions. Those wish to believe that some 'metaphysical creative force' kick-started the universe cannot be proven wrong--- or right-- but once something went "big bang", 'it' contained all the rules it ever needed to develop and produce US to scratch our heads and debate it. ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Bill D Date: 08 Jun 16 - 10:40 AM from this mornings news... Homeless shelters struggle with loss of federal funding |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 08 Jun 16 - 11:18 AM About the only argument that is probably true , is that the value of property will go down , which in fairness is a concern if you need tt move. But it happens in lots of places. Near us a former old peoples home is housing immigrants, and locals felt threatened, for no good reason , so far at least. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:23 PM Domesticating dinosaur is not a claim I have made , donuel, though I am in agreement with the biblical timescale , and that dinosaur and man co existed. And I don't know if I am missing something in your comment that human (just human ?!) DNA is not that complex apart from (!) the historic hidden codes and protein making instructions, as somewhat weird. I don't know if that is your view or just quoting wiki out of interest. Either way, it would seem analogous to saying a computer is not that complex , apart fom the information coding on the software!. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:43 PM Bill, bit of a stretch from one sentence about stars forming ,to then " life MUsT happen " ! That is something you believe, Of course, those too, who believe some nothing big banged to "kick started the universe cannot be proven wrong" even though it is contrary to experimental, testable science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Janie Date: 08 Jun 16 - 10:05 PM Does this thread really have to turn into another debate about religion? No. It doesn't have to. But it sure can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Bill D Date: 08 Jun 16 - 10:29 PM Pete & Janie.... for different reasons I was carefully avoiding a religious point and trying to comment on the inevitability of certain processes once the universe does exist. Joe Offer asked about how we come to understand logic, and I tried to show how it is related to our exploration of the basic laws of physics & cosmology. There can be religious debates about all this, but I will not get into them here. Pete... now that you are a member, you may PM me directly and we can discuss quietly some things that I formerly had to say publicly. Please use a PM to tell me your opinion of this idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jun 16 - 11:23 PM Stu says: Logic is not like mathematics, physics or chemistry. These have universal constants that would be recognised by an alien species very different to ours (for instance H2O will be exactly the same on their plant as it is here). If these aliens were at the same technological level as us then they would have developed their own system of logic but this could be very different from human logic; we could share some of our rules of logic, but their system would be very, very different. I don't think you're right on that, Stu. As far as I can see, the processes of logic should be universal. When one manipulates similar factors in similar ways and in similar conditions, they should have similar outcomes. Isn't that logical? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Jun 16 - 11:28 PM Pete, this is thread that you don't belong on. You drank the Koolaid, you're not joining the conversation, you're trying to change it to your worldview. Consider this a polite warning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jun 16 - 12:32 AM As for logic and the Homeless Shelter - We opened the shelter a little less than a year ago, with a capacity of 49 and permission to operate from 5 PM to 7 AM. Later, we got approval to operate a 24-hour shelter for the 49 people, and to operate an "overflow" area with space for sleeping on the floor for 50 people. Not much later, we started using the overflow area as an entry for our 24-hour program, which now includes addiction and mental health treatment, and job training. We have 15 people ready to be moved to permanent housing, but there is no vacant low-income housing available in our area. There are a lot of homeless people visible in our area, but I think that's because the sheriff has been closing down the hidden encampments in the area - bringing homeless people into more visible areas. The "overflow" area of the shelter almost always has 5-10 spaces open. Logic tells me, then, that the claim that the shelter is a "magnet" that draws homeless people, is invalid. If that is the case, why isn't our "overflow" area overflowing? I think that for the most part, demagogues bypass logic, and use deceptive tricks to make people believe them. Logic is an important tool for fighting demagoguery. It's a tool we all need to learn to use. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: DMcG Date: 09 Jun 16 - 02:47 AM I also think logic is universal, Stu and Joe. Rhetoric isn't, but logic is. To give an example "Buy British to protect British jobs" is expressed as if it is logical, but it is one of the many invalid structures that Bill referred to. It might happen to be true, or it might protect some British jobs at the cost of losing more jobs in the import and transport sector, or it might be wholly false. What it definitely is is a statement intended to persuade you to behave in a certain way. Almost all the arguments Joe will hear about the shelter will be like this. Moving onto our aliens: Let's repeat the most famous syllogism: All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore Socrates is mortal. What does it need to enable the aliens have this? Five things, in my book. They need the concept of attribute (mortal, red, noisy, gloopy, ...) They need the concept of discrete group or set (men, whales, planets, stars, ...). They need the concept of individual things (Socrates, 'I', that specific tree ..). They need the concept that individuals have attributes. And they need to agree that the group can be considered to have an attribute if the members have that attribute. I can imagine aliens with no concept of self, or at least no distinction between the self and the rest of the species. But one of the requirements of life is food, and so any intelligent life will at least distinguish between 'food' and 'not-food'. So I am convinced anything that has those concepts will have analogues of syllogisms, and also that these concepts are themselves universal. Rhetoric, on the other hand, is a different matter. That depends on what seems 'good' to our aliens, which involves ethics, aesthetics and so much else, which there is no reason to think will be remotely similar to ours - after all, were rarely agree with each other about them ourselves! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Stu Date: 09 Jun 16 - 03:45 AM Well, I'm going to have to read up more on logic; fascinating conversation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Lighter Date: 09 Jun 16 - 09:54 AM I taught informal logic to freshmen for many years. The most frequent negative evaluation was that the class was "too negative." That was because in order to avoid fallacious reasoning, you have to be warned over and over against identifiable fallacies, with lots of awful examples to analyze. The syllogisms (methods) for valid and sound arguments are, by contrast, very very few. I think the students who thought the course was "too negative" were mainly disturbed by how vigilant they'd have to be in life not to be taken in - and how easy it is to fool people, even inadvertently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Lighter Date: 09 Jun 16 - 10:12 AM > If these aliens were at the same technological level as us then they would have developed their own system of logic but this could be very different from human logic. This statement makes grammatical sense, but I'm not sure that it makes real sense. (But perhaps since "real sense is by definition "logical," maybe it doesn't have to.) I think the problem is with the use of the phrase "system of logic." Perhaps you mean "system of thinking." If so, we don't have to go to outer space to find it. Just look at human superstitions. It's very hard for me to imagine an alien "civilization" as "advanced" as ours whose *scientific* accomplishments are not based on the same logic, even if their everyday lives are built on the opposite of logic, which is superstition, error, magic, etc. Logic and math appear to be part of the fabric of the universe but are only perceptible by human (or higher) intelligence. For example, one cannot persuasively claim that 2 and 2 did not equal 4 (in other than quantum terms, perhaps) in the Jurassic period, or immediately after the Big Bang even if there was no one there to perceive it. Of course, one can *claim* that mathematical rules/laws/phenomena did not exist, but it is hard to conceive of what the evidence could be - especially since it would have to run counter (I think) to everything else we understand. And the possibility that "everything else" is wrong is remote indeed. As they say, "anything is possible." But some things appear to be so close to impossible by any rationally coherent standard that they can be rejected as quite untrue - until communicable evidence tells us otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 09 Jun 16 - 11:09 AM Bill, as you know, I never bring the subject up, but when it is bought up, I shall probably comment on it. Acme, what is the nature of your warning ? Are you the mudcat police ? And if I do comment , it is up to you whether you or anyone will want to reply........ And when the subject is raised , and a comment appears to be a breakdown of logical reason , I am all the more entitled to comment, as it also touches on the main topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Stu Date: 09 Jun 16 - 11:41 AM Lighter - I've always thought of logic as a human construct, a tool for understanding and interpreting data rather than a 'law' of nature (so to speak). Are you saying that all the rules of logic are in fact universal and not the product of human consciousness? Can logic be quantified? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Lighter Date: 09 Jun 16 - 12:55 PM "Construct" implies to me something more or less arbitrary, that could just as easily be something else. Languages, for example, are clearly "constructs," since no word or syntactical form has a direct relationship to reality. (If it did, there'd be just one universal language.) I see no reason then to believe that human logic ("reason")is only a "construct," because its connection to reality seems to be clearly and irrefutably confirmed everywhere all the time. Unreason, magic, superstition, etc., can be shown, however, to be completely unreliable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Lighter Date: 09 Jun 16 - 01:01 PM I should add that when logical reasoning is applied, it works equally well across all cultures. Surely that suggests universality. Also the "logic" of the universe (rather than its discovery and application by humans) seems undeniable, even if part of it is that some subatomic phenomena are absolutely random (that is, unpredictable). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Bill D Date: 09 Jun 16 - 01:21 PM Pete... please read Joe's opening comments carefully. He mentioned Intelligent Design, not to debate it, but as an illustration of how we use logic to make our discussions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jun 16 - 02:31 PM Stu says: I've always thought of logic as a human construct, a tool for understanding and interpreting data rather than a 'law' of nature (so to speak). Are you saying that all the rules of logic are in fact universal and not the product of human consciousness? I would say that the laws of nature are discovered primarily by empirical reasoning - observation of multiple instances under various conditions, leading to a conclusion. Once a law has been determined, one uses logic to draw further conclusions and make practical applications of the laws. Logic starts with a premise, and then builds upon that premise on a systematic process. For that process to be valid, it must follow the rules of logic. As Lighter says, valid arguments are very few; but the list of logical fallacies is long (and rather exciting). Alas, politicians seem to prefer the latter.... -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Tunesmith Date: 09 Jun 16 - 04:25 PM Ah, but "empirical logic" determined that the Earth was flat. Also, empirical logic would certainly conclude that "waves" created by tsunamis couldn't possible travel thousands of miles without losing power. Until relatively recently, the devastation to coastal areas caused by tsunamis would never had been attributed to an event thousands of miles away because that is not logical. No, science - not "empirical logic" came up with how the power of a tsunami works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Tug the Cox Date: 09 Jun 16 - 04:29 PM Logic is being discussed as if it is a singularity. There are different logics, for different purposes, in some versions the law of the excluded middle operates, in others the law of the included middle. The laws of identity are different in dialectics, and ancient chinese logic,. 'Fuzzy logic' which allows smart machines to function has a different set of rules again. Bart Kosko has written a clear account of Fuzzy Logig, well worth a read |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: DMcG Date: 09 Jun 16 - 04:30 PM Since you mention it, there is no evidence I am aware of that anyone ever thought the world was flat. In fact, the Greeks had a very accurate estimate of of the diameter of the earth. And "empirical evidence" at the coast made it quite evident to sailors from the earliest times that the world is not flat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: DMcG Date: 09 Jun 16 - 04:36 PM Eratosthenes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Lighter Date: 09 Jun 16 - 07:28 PM "Fuzzy logic" was developed only through the application of classical methods of deduction. It supplements classical logic, but - and this is absolutely key - it does not discredit or replace it. It is an extension of classical logic for use in certain contexts. At least that's my understanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Amos Date: 09 Jun 16 - 11:29 PM Logic differentiates, for one thing, in the number of values it permits in assessing an idea. Monotheism admits of a single value: "God's will". Dual-valued logic such as Manichean values allow two: good/bad, true/false. Binary systems engineering includes three: true/false/don't care (or "maybe") The logic of living beings is infinitely valued, seeing that one proposition can be a little more "good" or a little more "true" depending on the context and its variables. It treats all truth scales as infinite graduations. Of these, the latter is the only one suited for dealing with real life. The others require synthetic environments of one sort or another to work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jun 16 - 11:44 PM I think I'd be careful about using the term "empirical logic," Tunesmith. "Empirical reasoning" is the more common term (conclusions based on observation and collection of data), as opposed to "deductive reasoning," which is based more directly on classical logic. The Scientific Method is empirical reasoning, and it has a high level of validity. And yes, it IS wrong sometimes. Tunesmith started a parallel thread about logic and religion, but I closed the thread because we generally don't allow the confusion of two threads on the same subject running at the same time. Nonetheless, it is a valid question and should be included here:
http://mud.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=160058 4 messages
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jun 16 - 12:47 AM So, Tunesmith, in answer to your question about whether logic can be applied to religion, the answer is an unequivocal "yes." But I think a lot of people have a distorted view of logic. A computer operates with a form of logic called "binary logic." At its base, binary logic allows only two responses to every question, "yes" or "no." To deal with complicated stuff, it has to boil the problem down to umpteen bajillion "yes or no" questions. 64-bit computing allows for greater complexity in each calculation, but it still boils down to "yes or no" questions. There are explorations into far more complex versions of computer logic, but these are still in the beginning stages. The output of a computer is dependent upon the quality of the data that is put into it. Thus the acronym "GIGO" (garbage in: garbage out). If you put faulty data into a computer or into a logical argument, don't blame the logic. The questions of religion are in the realm of those "premises" that are stated before the logical processes begin. To my mind, it is foolhardy for people to try to prove or disprove religious premises. Look at the initial statement from Tunesmith:
Words - the truth of which - can not be verified be any other human being. Surely, there is not a trace of logic in such beliefs. At its face, the statement is correct. But on the other hand, the statement actually says nothing. The words of the Prophet are the premise, and the logic follows thereafter. Same applies to all religions - the words of the "sage" (Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, Confucius, Buddha) are the "given," to be accepted by believers. The logic follows thereafter. But there's another problem with Tunesmith's statement on Islam - Tunesmith defines Islam in Western European terms. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are Middle Eastern religions at their base, so they should be understood in Middle Eastern terms. Middle Eastern thinking is not so concerned with doctrine, and right and wrong, and correct and incorrect. Middle Eastern thought focuses far more on relationships, on family and tribe and community. Thus, the basic concept of most Middle Eastern religions is this: Love God (whoever God is), and do unto others as you would have them do unto you - it's about relationships, not doctrine. What is the "doctrine" of Islam or Judaism? I submit that these two religions really have no doctrine. Furthermore, it seems to me that "doctrine" is something that was imposed on Christianity by Western Europe, and Eastern Christianity is far closer to its roots because it does not focus so strongly on doctrine. So all this foolishness about proving and disproving "beliefs," may be missing the point completely. But I'm really trying to avoid letting this discussion morph into yet another heated battle about religion. Leading to that, here's a piece called "The Logic of Quantum Mechanics:There's a lot to consider there. And then there's another matter - in seminary (sorry), we were taught the rudiments of counseling through the principles of Cognitive Therapy, which is based on a theory that says that many psychological issues may be based on.....logical fallacies. I think there's something worthwhile to consider there, even if I DID learn it in such a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad place... -Joe- Also consider these: and |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Stu Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:45 AM "even if I DID learn it in such a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad place..." In the case of CT, that's where many of us learnt it. Remarkable tool though, still use it everyday and I was lucky to have a brilliant teacher. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Tunesmith Date: 10 Jun 16 - 08:05 AM Well, I would maintain that there are two basic types of logic. The first is a casual, simple logic akin to "common sense" which is applied by your average human being. The second is a deeper, more intense, logic which is found in the great minds of scientists and such. Take, for example, the flat earth/ spherical earth question. Now, simple logic would say that the world must be flat otherwise anything on the underside of "sphere" would fall off. However, even using "simple logic", some ancient men must have pondered the "horizon/ship approaching" question that puzzled some ancient Greek scientists. This is where people looking out to sea observed that the topmost part of an approaching ship's sails were the first part of the ship to be seen from land. Now, using "simple logic", some ancient men might have noted this phenomena but never "stretched their minds" any further and pondered why. But, we know, greater minds went looking for an explanation. Therefore, I would claim that "simple logic/common sense" as opposed to a scientific more penetrating logic, is the reason that logic, as applied by "Mr Average", is not to be trusted. Here is another example. Literally. millions of people before Isaac Newton must have observed "things" falling to the ground, and all those million's logic told them that it was because the falling objects had mass or weight or whatever. That is the simple logic/common sense approach. Moving on. As to my "Muslim"/Mohammad logic point. It is not logically to believe a person when he says - without verification - that he was visited by an angel, and that he could fly around on a winged horse. That is not logical! Indeed, if people were approached in the street with that story, I'm sure not one of those people would believe the story. Why? Because it isn't logical now, and it wasn't logical over 1000 years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Lighter Date: 10 Jun 16 - 09:23 AM > valid arguments are very few; but the list of logical fallacies is long (and rather exciting). Alas, politicians seem to prefer the latter.... Because politics isn't about finding facts or acting in the most logical manner. It's about *winning,* and if that takes appealing but fallacious arguments (and it does) those are the arguments we'll get. Hence propaganda. Propaganda techniques are essentially deductive fallacies, invalid inferences, bias, suppression of evidence ("cherry-picking"), and, of course, outright lies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jun 16 - 10:27 AM Tunesmith, I think you are expanding the definition of logic. No doubt, Muhammed was a very intelligent person. Otherwise, nobody would be likely to believe him. No Doubt, people who heard him, understood that he was speaking in poetic terms, not literally. If I put a carpenter's level on a table, I will most likely find that the table is flat, and also that it is level. If I put that level on the ground, I am most likely to find that the ground is flat and level. One can logically conclude that Muhammad speaks the truth, and one can logically conclude that the ground is flat. Your results may vary, depending on the data that you are working with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 10 Jun 16 - 10:39 AM Bill, I did read the first post carefully , and the second confrontational post. Did YOU read my post carefully ?! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Jun 16 - 02:33 PM The issue is never about proving or disproving "religious premises." But, just like scientific premises (if you must), religious premises don't get a free pass. In order for premises to be useful in logic and argument, they must have at least got some potential to do some explanatory heavy lifting. Premises such as "God exists," or "a man who allegedly existed called Jesus did this and that, therefore..." cannot do that lifting. In fact, as premises they are crippled from the outset, because they themselves need a huge amount more explanation than they can ever provide. Predicating "logic" on such shaky premises is, er, building your house on sand... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Tunesmith Date: 10 Jun 16 - 02:36 PM Well, Joe, I don't know if any Muslims believed that - at the time ( i.e. historically )Mohammad's encounter with an angel was merely poetic, BUT what is true is that a belief in angels is an article of faith in Muslim teaching. And, even a quick flip through Youtube video will reveal that seemingly well-educated Muslims believe literally that Mohammad met with an angel and flew around on a winged horse. BTW, Joe how much of the Bible do you, Joe believe is merely poetic, and if you do believe that parts of the Bible are indeed "poetic", how have you reached that conclusion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 10 Jun 16 - 02:56 PM If you really want to grasp the idea of validity and the laws of science I suggest a study of the Philosophy and Origin of Science. The progress of valid science and its laws is not and was not linear nor logical. Connections by Burke is a down and dirty expose' of this. Logical conclusions do give rise to certain laws and relationships but it does not mean those laws and relationships are necessarily logical as stand alone facts. Assuming science is valid only when it fulfills logic sounds like an exercise of instant self gratification. Fun but not valid. When a community is what must agree to grant validity, then all bets are off regarding the acceleration of truth. Now I will go back and painstakingly see if you mention your motivation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 10 Jun 16 - 03:35 PM Ah, now that I know the motivation I only have 2 thoughts that come to mind. The experience of homelessness teaches lessons not learned by most people with homes. It teaches survival in a land of ongoing victimization. The homeless are subject to more brutalization by every layer of society. The homeless are not brutes anymore than the ultra rich are brutes, depending on your perspective. The newly housed, former homeless, are taught humane and friendly lessons that most of our neighbors will never experience. The joy of this new safety and thankfulness is an experience that is remarkable when shared. Especially with the potential fiends already established in the neighborhood. The only enemy that people in the area should truly worry about is fear. Overcome fear and you have the beginning of friendship. Give in to fear and you become your own worst enemy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Donuel Date: 10 Jun 16 - 03:50 PM Logic rarely overcomes fear. I takes a long time. Sometimes it requires a selfless act by the good guys and a selfish act by the bad guys that goes viral. Good rumors, money can't buy. Its like spreading manure for flowers, stinky at first but soon admired by all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:24 PM Well, Donuel, science is the greatest of the almighty struggles of the human mind. There are good premises, bad premises, good logic predicated on bad premises and bad logic predicated on good premises (and better and worse). A search for truth that is only asymptotically attainable. In comparison, religion is a walk in the park. The answers are so obvious, so simple and so truthful - if you're of a certain mind. The simple certainties trump the mental struggle every time. It's up to rational people to decide which approach is the more honest, the wide open straight path to nirvana, or the road less travelled that will put sharp gravel in your shoe with every step. Incidentally, I prefer "laws of nature" to "laws of science." The first caveperson to look up at the moon and try to make sense of it was doing science just as much as Einstein was doing science, even though that person had no laws to guide them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:42 PM Donuel says: Assuming science is valid only when it fulfills logic sounds like an exercise of instant self gratification. Fun but not valid. I think that science, for the most part, is the product of empirical reasoning, employing the Scientific Method to observe, measure, and form and test conclusions. The application of science then often follows the principles of logic, to build upon principles discovered by observation. Is that more clear? Tunesmith, I don't think that any of the Bible is merely poetic. The poetry also has important meaning. I think that much of the Bible and much of many ancient sacred texts, is written in various literary forms that are not meant to be taken literally. Understanding which is which doesn't take a genius, but it does take some study. There have always been those who interpreted ancient sacred texts literally, but the strict literalism of modern fundamentalists in the Christian, Muslim, and some other faiths, is a fairly new development - most importantly within the last 125 years or so. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 10 Jun 16 - 07:29 PM Somehow joe, I can't imagine the early church martyrs dying for something they did,nt take literally ( by which i am presuming to mean that the narrative and events are to be plainly understood) I find Steves post to be lacking in logic. The premise that God is, or the premise that he is not , are both beyond absolute proof. However, if we take the premise that there is a God , his creation is not an illogical concept.. Take the premise that there is no creator God and we have the position of believing everything came from nothing. Whether, to say that there must be some cause other than a creator/prime mover , but we don't know what it is yet is logical or not would probably depend on the worldview of an individual . I reckon , that since it is not known, it is a faith statement. I don't see how that can be thought of as a motor logical position. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jun 16 - 07:55 PM Pete, I'm trying to stay away from the question of whether there's a God because it's not something we can agree on, and it can't be proved or disproved. We've been round and round on that, and gotten nowhere. But there's a lot that people can agree on, or at least accept as a valid position. We should be able to discuss logic in a positive way because it's something that applies to all of us, no matter what premises we accept. But what you and Tunesmith are aiming at, is the the realm of premises that we cannot agree upon or even discuss - we're not going there in this thread. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Jun 16 - 07:57 PM You're doing it, Pete. Stop changing the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Ed T Date: 10 Jun 16 - 08:35 PM Whwn we consider Science research quality, we consider peer review. An interesting article on the topic, which is important to Science. Science and Peer Review |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jun 16 - 08:52 PM Peer review is an important tool in almost every academic endeavor - including folk music research. Thanks for the link, Ed. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Jun 16 - 08:56 PM You may think it sounds odd coming from me, but I care not a jot for arguments as to whether there's a God or not. I care far more about the reasoning process, unending I should say, that strives towards seeking the truth of the matter. The difference between me and those inclined towards a faith position on the matter is that I can't accept the premise unless I have evidence. As such, I can't accept God's existence as a valid premise for any process of logic. "God exists. The writings inspired by God promote love of one's neighbour and charitable thoughts and deeds. That is a good thing. Therefore the existence of God is confirmed." It's quite hard to spot the logical flaw, and quite difficult to avoid being called a curmudgeon if you point it out! |
