[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 05:51 PM, said:

Everyone believes something. The question arises as to whether they have any valid justification for holding that particular belief and how much that belief resembles the real world; which itself can serve as justification for holding it. Points which are at the core of what we're discussing here and one which you have in no way addressed.

This is exactly what I have addressed. Have you not been paying attention? I am not the one saying I have proof, I am not the one saying I have answers.

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 05:51 PM, said:

The world, btw, is not built of, or on, belief, it exists. What you choose to believe about it depends on what your threshold for proof is and/or how credulous you are. Unless you want to start doubting the physical existence of the universe, that is...

I don't question the existence of the world. I just question what we know about it.

As for the methods for finding out what the reality is, and finding truth, science is only one part of it, as is logic. You cannot question one part and not question the other parts. You have to find it in yourself to imagine all possible worlds.
Remember that justification for holding a belief is purely subjective, because beliefs cannot be objective. The only thing left is your mind. So free it.

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

Yes, I know this is frustrating for you. You are correct more than you realize - in fact logic states that we can't really really prove anything. So when I say that the theory of evolution cannot be proven, I do technically mean other theories as well. How many though, I have no clue. Maybe it is in fact all theories, and if so, so be it. But you see, to accept any world, we have to go beyond logic, go beyond the uncertainty that is reason and believe in something. Even if we believe in nothing, that fits into the category. I may be denying the theory of evolution as a proven fact, but I am not denying it as a belief. You believe that your car will start every morning when you go to work, you believe that the elevator won't just disappear out of existence when you enter it, you believe that your work building will be where it was yesterday - all those things you cannot prove - and even so you live through your life believing in them.( I am using your own way to arguing proof here, even though it hurts.)

As SM says, the distinction lies between rational and irrational belief. Using my rational judgment and deductive reasoning I have concluded that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and the odds of it being completely falsified are astronomical. You seem to be attempting to reduce it to "only a belief" in the same way that it is "only a theory", perhaps in order to imply that it is just as valid to believe in any other conflicting proposition, but this of course is not true and we have been over this. When two conflicting theories have equal supporting evidence it is not rational to believe exclusively in either one. When, however, one of the two conflicting theories has all the supporting evidence, and the extent of that evidence is monumentally vast, it becomes rational to believe in it and irrational to believe in the other. This is what I'm referring to with the common usage of the word proof, I'm happy to exchange it for the phrase overwhelming observational evidence or something similar if you'd prefer.

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

Sorry, but I am not arguing the meaning of proof, I am giving you a very specific context, symbolic logic, and the purpose of symbolic logic is to determine the truth of statements in logic. Which by the way is the same system that science is built on.

No, science is certainly not built on formal logic, it is a 20th century development that is completely irrelevant to every field of classical science. Indeed formal logic has few uses beyond perhaps computing and even there it is only peripherally associated. Science it built on the logic of Aristotle, which is vastly different to the formal logic that prevents formal proofs (that you are referring to). Indeed skepticism was (with no need for modern formal logic) a presence in ancient greece, with the philosophy of Pyrrho, a contemporary of Aristotle. The idea that nothing can be proven was known and ignored, or at least confined to a method of freeing one's self from worry. It was certainly not used to challenge the efficacy of logic and deductive reasoning, which is the true foundation of the science of the renaissance.

If you wish to "give" me the context within which I am allowed to use language so be it, but do not misrepresent that context and next time, can I suggest establishing this context at the start of a discussion, as it is more common, so to speak to use common language?

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

Scientific theories might be hard to prove formally, but there are different levels, and the ground rule is that you try to falsify it, to disprove it, and if a theory can't be tested, then it's not really valid at all - you have asked the wrong question so to speak. I am being hard on science, I know, but it is within my right to be,and that doesn't mean I am not using common language - nice strawmanning btw.

I'm sorry but you just told me (in this very post no less) that you were giving me (your italics) a specific context within which I am to interpret the word proof. You are certainly not using common language.

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

I already agree that logic is relevant in reality only so far, which I have already stated numerous times. You on the other hand, are first stating that evolution is proven, then you say that evolution cannot be proven, that no theory can be proven, but at the same time you say that evolution is a proven truth because science is not built on logic anyway, and that logic is not reality. I am getting confused by your confusion. It is correct that logic does not encompass all of reality, that we build our lives beyond logic, as I have already said. I would think it is imperative to recognize this, and not say that you have the proven truth, when you actually don't.

The resolution of your professed confusion lies in the distinction between common logic and formal logic. I have explained myself sufficiently and indeed, I doubt you are truly confused. In fact, I am confused by your position - where does this denial of formal provability get you? Surely you can see that it has no bearing on any one particular theory but is a global principle affecting (or not affecting) all theories and thus does nothing to affect belief? In the context of the discussion - regardless of whether evolution can be formally proven, it is still supported by the same amount of observational evidence and thus represents the same amount of truth as is demonstrable by deductive reasoning and rational evaluation. In other words - who cares if nothing can be proven? Like I said, this argument adds no value.

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

Dude, all I am in fact saying is that it's not formally proven. I am glad you finally get what I am saying, well you sort of get it, since you still put alot of other stuff in there, but lets not be picky...
As I said, I don't deny the belief in evolution, I am denying that it is proven. Next step would be to try to falsify it, but yeah it's kinda hard to look for black swans in this situation.

No, it's not - this is your misconception. Falsifying a theory that pertains to something so directly observable is easy - all you have to do is keep making observations and recording data until a contradiction is found. Falsifying theories like Earth's molten core or cosmic inflation or extraterrestrial liquid water is hard due to the difficulty of obtaining data. We have mountains of biological data. Millions of species - living and extinct - have been studied. Dozens of genomes have been fully or partially mapped. Thousands of experiments have been carried out. You have said before it is not your belief in the bible that causes your disbelief in evolution, but evolution itself and it's supposed holes or problems - yet you have still not found one. Please, keep looking - as you've said, it is your right to be critical of science - but my advice to you if you'd like to actually find one is you'd better prepare yourself for years of research because in order to find holes in a theory that nobody else can see, you have to understand it better than them.

[stone monkey]

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 11:16 PM, said:

This is exactly what I have addressed. Have you not been paying attention? I am not the one saying I have proof, I am not the one saying I have answers.

That would appear to be exactly the opposite of what you've been saying. What you've mostly been saying is "That can't be an answer because I don't believe it." The truth, if it exists at all and whether it's discoverable by humans or not, does not depend in any way on your (or anybody else's) belief in it.

Quote

I don't question the existence of the world. I just question what we know about it.

As for the methods for finding out what the reality is, and finding truth, science is only one part of it, as is logic. You cannot question one part and not question the other parts. You have to find it in yourself to imagine all possible worlds.
Remember that justification for holding a belief is purely subjective, because beliefs cannot be objective. The only thing left is your mind. So free it.

It's all well and good to attempt to imagine all possible worlds, but we don't actually live in all possible worlds; we live in this one. What that is exactly is open to debate and investigation, but the thing about the scientific method is that it's the best and most effective tool we currently have for doing so. If that's a problem for you, go ahead and suggest something that works better. The pondering about the nature of the universe would seem to me to be what David Foster Wallace called "private sector thinking"; useful results are required...

Also, I can't be sure about your mind (or anybody else's for that matter; you could all be Philosophical Zombies for all I know) and I certainly can't be sure about mine, limited as it is (the TMA sees to that...), so when you talk about minds to be freed, what exactly is it that you mean?

An inelegant and purely brute force argument would seem to show that it's certain that all possible worlds can't be imagined, or conceived of, by anything merely human; there is only a finite amount of processing power available to us in this universe (you might want to look up Bremermann's Limit), so it's therefore very probable that such a task cannot be done in anything short of infinite time by anything that exists. And I, for one, have to be at work in the morning

Having an open mind is one thing, having a mind so open that your brain falls out of it is another...

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 07 October 2009 - 12:20 AM

[Cold Iron]

+rep for interesting links

[Terez]

I found a pretty picture:

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 11:54 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 11:16 PM, said:

This is exactly what I have addressed. Have you not been paying attention? I am not the one saying I have proof, I am not the one saying I have answers.

That would appear to be exactly the opposite of what you've been saying. What you've mostly been saying is "That can't be an answer because I don't believe it."

It seems indeed that you haven't been paying attention. I have said that "That could be the answer, but it doesn't have to be". That you interpret what I am saying as you just put it, is what I am talking about when I say this is like bashing my head against a wall. If I say that you interpretation of what I am saying is wrong, why can't you listen to that? I may or may not be the most proficient in explaining to you how I think, but my explanations should at least matter some of the time.

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 11:54 PM, said:

The truth, if it exists at all and whether it's discoverable by humans or not, does not depend in any way on your (or anybody else's) belief in it.

Exactly! Belief is part of how we humans deal with the world, as I've already discussed. My point is that what you are saying, which is very much correct by the way, applies to all beliefs humankind builds on, not just religion. I'm not the one denying illusion here - hopefully noone else does either.

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 11:54 PM, said:

Quote

I don't question the existence of the world. I just question what we know about it.

As for the methods for finding out what the reality is, and finding truth, science is only one part of it, as is logic. You cannot question one part and not question the other parts. You have to find it in yourself to imagine all possible worlds.
Remember that justification for holding a belief is purely subjective, because beliefs cannot be objective. The only thing left is your mind. So free it.

It's all well and good to attempt to imagine all possible worlds, but we don't actually live in all possible worlds; we live in this one. What that is exactly is open to debate and investigation, but the thing about the scientific method is that it's the best and most effective tool we currently have for doing so.

There you go again, making science The Tool. I have said it is one tool, but it's not the only one. And it's not very accurate either, as history shows. It may have grown considerably the last 100 years, but it's inherently incomplete because of the limits that it builds on. Nothing wrong with that, and I love science, but I won't call it what it is not. This is your belief talking - you're making Science into something that is bigger than humankind, and it's not.

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 11:54 PM, said:

If that's a problem for you, go ahead and suggest something that works better. The pondering about the nature of the universe would seem to me to be what David Foster Wallace called "private sector thinking"; useful results are required...

The problem with this thinking is that Science gives you the illusion of giving ultimate answers, and then you require all other answers to give the same illusion of ultimate answers. I don't agree with this world view. The ultimate answers you speak of are built on beliefs - they're philosophy incarnated, and denying it only enforces the illusion of ultimate answers. I don't understand this need to make science into something it is not. Okay, so it is great that you find that science gives you meaning - it is something I can understand. But I can't agree with it, sorry.

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 11:54 PM, said:

Also, I can't be sure about your mind (or anybody else's for that matter; you could all be Philosophical Zombies for all I know) and I certainly can't be sure about mine, limited as it is (the TMA sees to that...), so when you talk about minds to be freed, what exactly is it that you mean?

Well, to be fair, I do think your mind already is free, I was being rhetorical - but also I meant it, although maybe not the way you think. I believe that we all have to make up our own minds about the world, and our beliefs. What I am talking about when I say free your mind, is partly that we have to know ourselves, and our own minds. And by knowing ourselves, we will know the truth. If it is the ultimate truth, or a truth, that is another story altogether, and not for me to answer. You have to decide that yourself.

However, my own mind is the only thing I can be absolute sure of - all my senses can be tricked, the world outside might be a lie - but my mind, if I make it my own, I can be sure of. Because if I don't accept that, then I don't accept my own existence. Which is silly.

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 11:54 PM, said:

An inelegant and purely brute force argument would seem to show that it's certain that all possible worlds can't be imagined, or conceived of, by anything merely human; there is only a finite amount of processing power available to us in this universe (you might want to look up Bremermann's Limit), so it's therefore very probable that such a task cannot be done in anything short of infinite time by anything that exists. And I, for one, have to be at work in the morning

Yeah, I know, it is quite a task. What I mean when I say that, is that we should strive for it, even if we won't succeed, or even know if we succeed. You are deliberately taking me too literally here. Which is smart, I give you that. And you are - a smart guy I mean. I am simply talking about a state of mind, a way to view yourself and the world. Uncertainty is not that horrible as you may think - disillusion is the first step towards real knowledge - insofar as something can be called real.

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 11:54 PM, said:

Having an open mind is one thing, having a mind so open that your brain falls out of it is another...

This is silly, we're not talking about brain melting here, we're talking about making your mind strong, not the opposite. I don't mean to say that you shouldn't believe in nothing, or that conviction is wrong - quite the opposite.
Opening your mind and having strong convictions are not mutually exclusive - they are in fact dependent on each other.

Man, that was interesting - my brain is melting a little after all. If I forgot to reply to something, please let me know.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 17 October 2009 - 03:07 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 11:34 PM, said:

As SM says, the distinction lies between rational and irrational belief. Using my rational judgment and deductive reasoning I have concluded that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and the odds of it being completely falsified are astronomical. You seem to be attempting to reduce it to "only a belief" in the same way that it is "only a theory", perhaps in order to imply that it is just as valid to believe in any other conflicting proposition, but this of course is not true and we have been over this. When two conflicting theories have equal supporting evidence it is not rational to believe exclusively in either one. When, however, one of the two conflicting theories has all the supporting evidence, and the extent of that evidence is monumentally vast, it becomes rational to believe in it and irrational to believe in the other. This is what I'm referring to with the common usage of the word proof, I'm happy to exchange it for the phrase overwhelming observational evidence or something similar if you'd prefer.

The meaning of what you are saying is still the same, dude, no matter if you change your phrasing (however I appreciate the effort). But you clearly have misunderstood me. I understand the above clearly enough. I do not however agree with the distinction between rational and irrational belief. I think you have hit the nail on the head with this one. It is exactly where the biggest part of my criticism lies. That some belief is considered more rational than others. We are in both cases talking about beliefs, not proof. And that you are intermingling the concepts are very showing imo. I strongly object to it. Beliefs are by definition not rational. By definition the definition of a beliefs rationality lies in the belief itself, and therefore the level of rationality cannot objectively be measured. This is where formal logic comes in. You may dislike the need for it, but proof and rationality and logic exists on the same level of formality. I'm sorry but you can't drag proof down to a 'common' level and hope to get the same level of rationality as the formal level. I could agree on the distinction between common proof and formal proof, for arguments sake, but I don't think you would agree on it, because then you have officially neutered your own argument.

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 11:34 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

Sorry, but I am not arguing the meaning of proof, I am giving you a very specific context, symbolic logic, and the purpose of symbolic logic is to determine the truth of statements in logic. Which by the way is the same system that science is built on.

No, science is certainly not built on formal logic, it is a 20th century development that is completely irrelevant to every field of classical science. Indeed formal logic has few uses beyond perhaps computing and even there it is only peripherally associated. Science it built on the logic of Aristotle, which is vastly different to the formal logic that prevents formal proofs (that you are referring to). Indeed skepticism was (with no need for modern formal logic) a presence in ancient greece, with the philosophy of Pyrrho, a contemporary of Aristotle. The idea that nothing can be proven was known and ignored, or at least confined to a method of freeing one's self from worry. It was certainly not used to challenge the efficacy of logic and deductive reasoning, which is the true foundation of the science of the renaissance.

You're terribly wrong I'm afraid. If Science hadn't evolved at all, it would still indeed be at the level of ancient greece, which would not be very good. Formal logic is part of the scientific evolution, and should not be seen as a separate part, but a necessary part of the ground braking growth science has made in the last century. The modern formal logic is a 1900th century invention by people like Gottlob Frege and the early Wittgenstein. They however built on earlier systems and they did it because there was a need in the ever more scientific world to build a formal system of proof. It didn't turn out as successful as they ahd hoped though, but even so it is definitely part of the scientific world today. I'd say that they both evolved part of each other and dependent of each other. It's a bit like the Chicken and the egg - hard to know for sure. But the formal system that was built was definitely part of a broader flow of ideas that influenced all parts of society at the time.

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 11:34 PM, said:

If you wish to "give" me the context within which I am allowed to use language so be it, but do not misrepresent that context and next time, can I suggest establishing this context at the start of a discussion, as it is more common, so to speak to use common language?

Giving a context of the use of words are common language, or we wouldn't be able to communicate.

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 11:34 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

Scientific theories might be hard to prove formally, but there are different levels, and the ground rule is that you try to falsify it, to disprove it, and if a theory can't be tested, then it's not really valid at all - you have asked the wrong question so to speak. I am being hard on science, I know, but it is within my right to be,and that doesn't mean I am not using common language - nice strawmanning btw.

I'm sorry but you just told me (in this very post no less) that you were giving me (your italics) a specific context within which I am to interpret the word proof. You are certainly not using common language.

Wrong - what I meant was that I was giving you a context and therefor was using common language. I didn't mean context in the sense that you had to keep to it - I was giving a context so you could understand me, which is basic communicating rules.

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 11:34 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

I already agree that logic is relevant in reality only so far, which I have already stated numerous times. You on the other hand, are first stating that evolution is proven, then you say that evolution cannot be proven, that no theory can be proven, but at the same time you say that evolution is a proven truth because science is not built on logic anyway, and that logic is not reality. I am getting confused by your confusion. It is correct that logic does not encompass all of reality, that we build our lives beyond logic, as I have already said. I would think it is imperative to recognize this, and not say that you have the proven truth, when you actually don't.

The resolution of your professed confusion lies in the distinction between common logic and formal logic. I have explained myself sufficiently and indeed, I doubt you are truly confused. In fact, I am confused by your position - where does this denial of formal provability get you? Surely you can see that it has no bearing on any one particular theory but is a global principle affecting (or not affecting) all theories and thus does nothing to affect belief? In the context of the discussion - regardless of whether evolution can be formally proven, it is still supported by the same amount of observational evidence and thus represents the same amount of truth as is demonstrable by deductive reasoning and rational evaluation. In other words - who cares if nothing can be proven? Like I said, this argument adds no value.

You may be using common logic (what ever the hell that means), but the reason I was turning to formal logic is because it is much more pure, and more clear and therefor a better tool when communicating what I was saying. But again you misunderstand me. I never meant to effect belief. In fact my point all along is that logic does nothing to affect belief. You are welcome to believe in Evolution all you like, I wouldn't even want to deny you that belief. Even so I strongly disagree with you on the proof front.

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 11:34 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

Dude, all I am in fact saying is that it's not formally proven. I am glad you finally get what I am saying, well you sort of get it, since you still put alot of other stuff in there, but lets not be picky...
As I said, I don't deny the belief in evolution, I am denying that it is proven. Next step would be to try to falsify it, but yeah it's kinda hard to look for black swans in this situation.

No, it's not - this is your misconception. Falsifying a theory that pertains to something so directly observable is easy - all you have to do is keep making observations and recording data until a contradiction is found. Falsifying theories like Earth's molten core or cosmic inflation or extraterrestrial liquid water is hard due to the difficulty of obtaining data. We have mountains of biological data. Millions of species - living and extinct - have been studied. Dozens of genomes have been fully or partially mapped. Thousands of experiments have been carried out. You have said before it is not your belief in the bible that causes your disbelief in evolution, but evolution itself and it's supposed holes or problems - yet you have still not found one. Please, keep looking - as you've said, it is your right to be critical of science - but my advice to you if you'd like to actually find one is you'd better prepare yourself for years of research because in order to find holes in a theory that nobody else can see, you have to understand it better than them.

ROFL! I have no desire to falsify evolution, because I don't build my world view on the existence nor the non existence if it. You, on the other hand, is the one that would need to prepare for years of research, because you are the one building your worldview on it, and you are the one that has to try to falsify it. But then again, you don't seem to be that interested in logic, so maybe not.

Edit: clarified some things that was muddy.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 17 October 2009 - 03:52 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Gem Windcaster, on 17 October 2009 - 03:35 PM, said:

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 11:34 PM, said:

As SM says, the distinction lies between rational and irrational belief. Using my rational judgment and deductive reasoning I have concluded that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and the odds of it being completely falsified are astronomical. You seem to be attempting to reduce it to "only a belief" in the same way that it is "only a theory", perhaps in order to imply that it is just as valid to believe in any other conflicting proposition, but this of course is not true and we have been over this. When two conflicting theories have equal supporting evidence it is not rational to believe exclusively in either one. When, however, one of the two conflicting theories has all the supporting evidence, and the extent of that evidence is monumentally vast, it becomes rational to believe in it and irrational to believe in the other. This is what I'm referring to with the common usage of the word proof, I'm happy to exchange it for the phrase overwhelming observational evidence or something similar if you'd prefer.

The meaning of what you are saying is still the same, dude, no matter if you change your phrasing (however I appreciate the effort). But you clearly have misunderstood me. I understand the above clearly enough. I do not however agree with the distinction between rational and irrational belief. I think you have hit the nail on the head with this one. It is exactly where the biggest part of my criticism lies. That some belief is considered more rational than others. We are in both cases talking about beliefs, not proof. And that you are intermingling the concepts are very showing imo. I strongly object to it. Beliefs are by definition not rational. By definition the definition of a beliefs rationality lies in the belief itself, and therefore the level of rationality cannot objectively be measured. This is where formal logic comes in. You may dislike the need for it, but proof and rationality and logic exists on the same level of formality. I'm sorry but you can't drag proof down to a 'common' level and hope to get the same level of rationality as the formal level. I could agree on the distinction between common proof and formal proof, for arguments sake, but I don't think you would agree on it, because then you have officially neutered your own argument.

This is an interesting way to go with the argument. But I would assert that for belief to be truly irrationally based, there would be no cohesion amongst the myriad beliefs that one holds. But one's beliefs are rationally constructed. One generally does not believe that the Earth is flat, AND that it is spherical. Now, THAT is irrational. So your beliefs do in fact have a rational component, but not necessarily one that correlates to proof, or concrete evidence- but they certainly DO correlate to other beliefs that you may hold.

Indeed, in an irrational belief system since there's no rational (or approximately logical) construction of beliefs, all beliefs, no matter how ludicrous, would be equally likely. Were beliefs truly irrational, there would be no such thing as sanity, much less reality.

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on 17 October 2009 - 03:35 PM, said:

The meaning of what you are saying is still the same, dude, no matter if you change your phrasing (however I appreciate the effort). But you clearly have misunderstood me. I understand the above clearly enough. I do not however agree with the distinction between rational and irrational belief. I think you have hit the nail on the head with this one. It is exactly where the biggest part of my criticism lies. That some belief is considered more rational than others. We are in both cases talking about beliefs, not proof. And that you are intermingling the concepts are very showing imo. I strongly object to it. Beliefs are by definition not rational. By definition the definition of a beliefs rationality lies in the belief itself, and therefore the level of rationality cannot objectively be measured. This is where formal logic comes in. You may dislike the need for it, but proof and rationality and logic exists on the same level of formality. I'm sorry but you can't drag proof down to a 'common' level and hope to get the same level of rationality as the formal level. I could agree on the distinction between common proof and formal proof, for arguments sake, but I don't think you would agree on it, because then you have officially neutered your own argument.

Formal logic is a mathematical (or metamathematical) method for describing a system, it has nothing to do with reason or the rational thought process. A formal proof can exist only within a fully defined, consistent and bound system. Gödel's incompleteness theorems (whoa talk about a circular argument) show that no nontrivial system can be both complete and consistent, and this is the basis for the statement "nothing is formally provable". This is a philosophical dead end. The foundations of mathematics have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method or the method by which we judge certain propositions to be rational, reasonable, logical or substantiable. You are arguing a straw man, whether a theory has been formally proven has no bearing on it's validity as, by your own admission, nothing is formally provable. As I have said, you are adding no value with this line of argument. Formal logic is irrelevant.

Unless you want to be a nihilist (or even if you do) if you wish to find an answer to the question of how you got here (or any other question), you will have to believe something. I have no idea how you think you are able to substantiate the claim that a belief's rationality cannot be objectively verified but your above statement certainly does not do so. This is relevant and now we are talking about the scientific method and I'm very sorry, but the method by which one can objectively verify a particular belief's rationality is very simple - empirical evidence.

Gem Windcaster, on 17 October 2009 - 03:35 PM, said:

You're terribly wrong I'm afraid. If Science hadn't evolved at all, it would still indeed be at the level of ancient greece, which would not be very good. Formal logic is part of the scientific evolution, and should not be seen as a separate part, but a necessary part of the ground braking growth science has made in the last century. The modern formal logic is a 1900th century invention by people like Gottlob Frege and the early Wittgenstein. They however built on earlier systems and they did it because there was a need in the ever more scientific world to build a formal system of proof. It didn't turn out as successful as they ahd hoped though, but even so it is definitely part of the scientific world today. I'd say that they both evolved part of each other and dependent of each other. It's a bit like the Chicken and the egg - hard to know for sure. But the formal system that was built was definitely part of a broader flow of ideas that influenced all parts of society at the time.

So what? Nuclear physics developed at the same time, and had a profound influence on all parts of society, but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I've addressed this enough, see above.

Gem Windcaster, on 17 October 2009 - 03:35 PM, said:

ROFL! I have no desire to falsify evolution.

/discussion.

[beru]

gem, if sience hadent evolved at all we would be at the sientific level of "dont have the consept of tools"

[stone monkey]

Do we have to do this again?

Okay where to start?

To be fair, I have been listening to you. And my stated interpretation of what you've been saying is how you come across to me. If that's not what you actually believe, then you need to say it better. Or maybe get a bit more precise on what it is you actually do think before trying to explain it. I would also point out, in passing, that if that I were going to choose to get all post-structuralist on what you say, you're actually the very last person we should listen to if I'm going to interpret what you mean. Or if, in fact, you mean anything at all... Post-modernism is a sword that cuts both ways. Just because I don't use it doesn't mean I don't know how. Authorial intent is so 19th Century; I had thought the New Critics had killed that one stone dead

Science is a tool. Well, duh!, obviously... If you'll permit me a rather dumb analogy; science is a tool for finding out about the universe in much the same way as a hammer is a tool for banging in nails. Sure, you can use other tools, your head for instance, but they'll never be as useful for that particular job as a hammer because that's what hammers are for. To extend this dumb metaphor to an even further; using religion to tell you about the nature of the universe is like using your head to bang in a nail a]it'll hurt, b]in the majority of cases it won't work and c]if you have a hammer to hand, you're much better off using that as you'll do a much more effective job with it...

Right then, minds. I was being somewhat mischievous, but that particular argument does stand. Also, one might enquire how you know you have a mind..? And how you know that... and that... and so on ad infinitum. Can you really be sure? Or is it merely that you have a belief? For someone who claims to be open to all possibilities, you haven't really thought this through. It's entirely possible, if rather unlikely, that you don't have a mind after all... I should point out that, whilst you very probably do have a mind, you also have no way of proving this to me or anyone else (hence my comment on Philosophical Zombies...) Not that silly after all, is it?

My comment about brains falling out was about believing in everything, not nothing. Which would strike me as a way for weakening one's mind, not strengthening it. Different ways of knowing are fine, when they actually tell us useful things. And if they don't tell us anything useful, I'm of the opinion that they can be safely ignored by me.

As a final point and because we're getting way, way off topic, I should say that the difference between believing that evolution has taken place and that living things got to their present state by some other means, like being created whole or even part cloth by a deity, is a matter for each individual to decide for themselves based on what particular criteria they use for working out what is and isn't a rational belief. My belief in evolution comes from the fact that the competing theories do not fit what we've been able to glean about the universe using our intellects and the examination of the world around us. This does not preclude a creator, it does seem to preclude certain types of creator (namely your 7 days Judeo-Christian species of such), but it also doesn't leave an awful lot of room for this hypothetical being to wriggle around in. And this space is getting smaller the more we find out about the world.

As a very last, and somewhat frivolous, point the "chicken and egg" thing; it's a terrible analogy, the answer's "egg". All chickens hatch from eggs, but not all eggs are laid by chickens; it's pretty straightforward. I hate it when people make that mistake.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 20 October 2009 - 01:52 AM

[Terez]

Perhaps we should change it to 'which came first - the chicken, or the chicken egg?' for the pedantic among us....

[Cold Iron]

stone monkey, on 20 October 2009 - 01:36 AM, said:

As a very last, and somewhat frivolous, point the "chicken and egg" thing; it's a terrible analogy, the answer's "egg". All chickens hatch from eggs, but not all eggs are laid by chickens; it's pretty straightforward. I hate it when people make that mistake.

Thank the gods (as potsherds would say) that we were at least able to resolve something in this thread.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

/thread.

[Gem Windcaster]

Adjutant Stormy, on 18 October 2009 - 02:50 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 17 October 2009 - 03:35 PM, said:

The meaning of what you are saying is still the same, dude, no matter if you change your phrasing (however I appreciate the effort). But you clearly have misunderstood me. I understand the above clearly enough. I do not however agree with the distinction between rational and irrational belief. I think you have hit the nail on the head with this one. It is exactly where the biggest part of my criticism lies. That some belief is considered more rational than others. We are in both cases talking about beliefs, not proof. And that you are intermingling the concepts are very showing imo. I strongly object to it. Beliefs are by definition not rational. By definition the definition of a beliefs rationality lies in the belief itself, and therefore the level of rationality cannot objectively be measured. This is where formal logic comes in. You may dislike the need for it, but proof and rationality and logic exists on the same level of formality. I'm sorry but you can't drag proof down to a 'common' level and hope to get the same level of rationality as the formal level. I could agree on the distinction between common proof and formal proof, for arguments sake, but I don't think you would agree on it, because then you have officially neutered your own argument.

This is an interesting way to go with the argument. But I would assert that for belief to be truly irrationally based, there would be no cohesion amongst the myriad beliefs that one holds. But one's beliefs are rationally constructed. One generally does not believe that the Earth is flat, AND that it is spherical. Now, THAT is irrational. So your beliefs do in fact have a rational component, but not necessarily one that correlates to proof, or concrete evidence- but they certainly DO correlate to other beliefs that you may hold.

Indeed, in an irrational belief system since there's no rational (or approximately logical) construction of beliefs, all beliefs, no matter how ludicrous, would be equally likely. Were beliefs truly irrational, there would be no such thing as sanity, much less reality.

Thankyou for seeing my point. I stand by my belief that belief is every inch irrational. But that doesn't mean that humans are all irrational. Think about that for a second.
Now, lets now for arguments sake agree that beliefs are to some extent rational. Who decides what is rational and what isn't? Your priest? Your scientist? The president? Some girl with two heads born in India? Your mother? The kind of rationality you speak of is not even in the same universe as objective. Even if you would blindly believe in some objective truth, who decides what it is? Because it won't show up and kick us in the head. We could imagine something kicking us in the head, but that is another story completely.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 01 November 2009 - 02:46 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on 19 October 2009 - 05:17 AM, said:

Formal logic is a mathematical (or metamathematical) method for describing a system, it has nothing to do with reason or the rational thought process. A formal proof can exist only within a fully defined, consistent and bound system. Gödel's incompleteness theorems (whoa talk about a circular argument) show that no nontrivial system can be both complete and consistent, and this is the basis for the statement "nothing is formally provable". This is a philosophical dead end. The foundations of mathematics have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method or the method by which we judge certain propositions to be rational, reasonable, logical or substantiable. You are arguing a straw man, whether a theory has been formally proven has no bearing on it's validity as, by your own admission, nothing is formally provable. As I have said, you are adding no value with this line of argument. Formal logic is irrelevant.

Try to understand what I am saying, instead of putting words in my mouth, seriously. Who said anything about science not being reasonable or rational? I certainly didn't. I said that your belief in science is irrational - specifically the theory of evolution. Specifically I said that it is not formally proven - which was what I meant when I said it was not proven. You understand the construction of logic, yet you refuse to see what I am saying. Furthermore, science is built on logical and mathematical principles, by which a theory is judged, and every day scientists use logic and mathematics to define their science. However, it is true that it is beside the point I am trying to make. I am not making a circular argument, I am showing you the futility of pure logic. You say it yourself - you have to go beyond those boundaries to truly judge a scientific theory. Because in your words:

Quote

the foundations of mathematics have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method or the method by which we judge certain propositions to be rational, reasonable, logical or substantiable.

Indeed.

Cold Iron, on 19 October 2009 - 05:17 AM, said:

Unless you want to be a nihilist (or even if you do) if you wish to find an answer to the question of how you got here (or any other question), you will have to believe something. I have no idea how you think you are able to substantiate the claim that a belief's rationality cannot be objectively verified but your above statement certainly does not do so. This is relevant and now we are talking about the scientific method and I'm very sorry, but the method by which one can objectively verify a particular belief's rationality is very simple - empirical evidence.

I have nothing against belief, quite the contrary - how many times to I have to say this? But as I said the above post, belief cannot be objective, and therefore empirical evidence have no effect on it's outcome. Empirical evidence has only an effect on itself, because it's a closed system. It requires an irrational human to give the empirical evidence meaning. It requires belief.

Cold Iron, on 19 October 2009 - 05:17 AM, said:

So what? Nuclear physics developed at the same time, and had a profound influence on all parts of society, but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I've addressed this enough, see above.

You were using your ignorance as an argument, so I had to address it, and you know why. Stop fidgeting.

Cold Iron, on 19 October 2009 - 05:17 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 17 October 2009 - 03:35 PM, said:

ROFL! I have no desire to falsify evolution.

/discussion.

You're a funny guy.

Summary: It requires something more than data, logic, mathematics etc. to form evidence. A thinking, believing human is needed. So go on and believe you have the truth. I commend you. But stop claiming the absolute objective truth, because it's an intellectual abomination.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 01 November 2009 - 03:14 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 20 October 2009 - 01:36 AM, said:

Do we have to do this again?

Okay where to start?

To be fair, I have been listening to you. And my stated interpretation of what you've been saying is how you come across to me. If that's not what you actually believe, then you need to say it better. Or maybe get a bit more precise on what it is you actually do think before trying to explain it. I would also point out, in passing, that if that I were going to choose to get all post-structuralist on what you say, you're actually the very last person we should listen to if I'm going to interpret what you mean. Or if, in fact, you mean anything at all... Post-modernism is a sword that cuts both ways. Just because I don't use it doesn't mean I don't know how. Authorial intent is so 19th Century; I had thought the New Critics had killed that one stone dead

Nothing is absolute, but the things that are. (hey you asked for it )- Yes I've been trying to be clearer, and I will try to be clearer with every post I write. Just ask if there's anything you are uncertain about.

stone monkey, on 20 October 2009 - 01:36 AM, said:

Science is a tool. Well, duh!, obviously... If you'll permit me a rather dumb analogy; science is a tool for finding out about the universe in much the same way as a hammer is a tool for banging in nails. Sure, you can use other tools, your head for instance, but they'll never be as useful for that particular job as a hammer because that's what hammers are for. To extend this dumb metaphor to an even further; using religion to tell you about the nature of the universe is like using your head to bang in a nail a]it'll hurt, b]in the majority of cases it won't work and c]if you have a hammer to hand, you're much better off using that as you'll do a much more effective job with it...

We all have different methods, I suppose. Read my above post - specifically about human irrationality versus empirical evidence. I will delve deeper into this when I get the chance.

stone monkey, on 20 October 2009 - 01:36 AM, said:

Right then, minds. I was being somewhat mischievous, but that particular argument does stand. Also, one might enquire how you know you have a mind..? And how you know that... and that... and so on ad infinitum. Can you really be sure? Or is it merely that you have a belief? For someone who claims to be open to all possibilities, you haven't really thought this through. It's entirely possible, if rather unlikely, that you don't have a mind after all... I should point out that, whilst you very probably do have a mind, you also have no way of proving this to me or anyone else (hence my comment on Philosophical Zombies...) Not that silly after all, is it?

Ofcourse, I might be someone's dream. But, with this, as with anything else really - this just makes it more obvious - thing is I have to make up my mind what I believe. And I choose to believe that my mind exist. Because it's the baseline of my existence. To not believe in one's own existence is just...well, silly. So yes, I have thought about that. A lot.

stone monkey, on 20 October 2009 - 01:36 AM, said:

My comment about brains falling out was about believing in everything, not nothing. Which would strike me as a way for weakening one's mind, not strengthening it. Different ways of knowing are fine, when they actually tell us useful things. And if they don't tell us anything useful, I'm of the opinion that they can be safely ignored by me.

But how do you know the difference between what is your mind and what is the rest? To know yourself, you have to believe in nothing. But to define your existence, you have to believe in everything. And then you learn your own choices, because what you are is your choices.

stone monkey, on 20 October 2009 - 01:36 AM, said:

As a final point and because we're getting way, way off topic, I should say that the difference between believing that evolution has taken place and that living things got to their present state by some other means, like being created whole or even part cloth by a deity, is a matter for each individual to decide for themselves based on what particular criteria they use for working out what is and isn't a rational belief. My belief in evolution comes from the fact that the competing theories do not fit what we've been able to glean about the universe using our intellects and the examination of the world around us. This does not preclude a creator, it does seem to preclude certain types of creator (namely your 7 days Judeo-Christian species of such), but it also doesn't leave an awful lot of room for this hypothetical being to wriggle around in. And this space is getting smaller the more we find out about the world.

Good for you, I respect that. I doesn't mean I agree, but I can see what you are saying.

stone monkey, on 20 October 2009 - 01:36 AM, said:

As a very last, and somewhat frivolous, point the "chicken and egg" thing; it's a terrible analogy, the answer's "egg". All chickens hatch from eggs, but not all eggs are laid by chickens; it's pretty straightforward. I hate it when people make that mistake.

You know, I use to laugh at the question, because it's such a stupid one. But your answer is wrong btw - and right too. But that is another story, and another thread. (please don't hate me for breaking the celebration of us actually agreeing on something)

Terez, on 20 October 2009 - 10:06 AM, said:

Perhaps we should change it to 'which came first - the chicken, or the chicken egg?' for the pedantic among us....

That would be a very short thread. But okay. I'm all for wrestling in the mud.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 01 November 2009 - 03:33 AM

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on 01 November 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

Try to understand what I am saying, instead of putting words in my mouth, seriously. Who said anything about science not being reasonable or rational? I certainly didn't. I said that your belief in science is irrational - specifically the theory of evolution. Specifically I said that it is not formally proven - which was what I meant when I said it was not proven. You understand the construction of logic, yet you refuse to see what I am saying.

Just to reiterate - correct me if I'm wrong - you say belief in evolution is not rational as evolution is not proven - as nothing can be formally proven. Thus no belief is rational and furthermore no belief can be judged any more or less rational than any other belief. But I shouldn't put words into your mouth because you certainly never said science is irrational, just belief in it.

You seem to be redefining the word rational here because from my understanding, only beliefs (and numbers) can be rational. Can you explain how belief in science is irrational but science itself is rational?

Gem Windcaster, on 01 November 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

Furthermore, science is built on logical and mathematical principles, by which a theory is judged, and every day scientists use logic and mathematics to define their science. However, it is true that it is beside the point I am trying to make. I am not making a circular argument, I am showing you the futility of pure logic. You say it yourself - you have to go beyond those boundaries to truly judge a scientific theory. Because in your words:

Quote

the foundations of mathematics have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method or the method by which we judge certain propositions to be rational, reasonable, logical or substantiable.

Indeed.

You misrepresent my words. What I meant was "formal logic" - developed as an attempt to explain the foundations of mathematics - has nothing to do with Aristotle's methodology for establishing valid arguments and reasonable truth. Allow me to rephrase - you are correct in saying science is based on logic, but you are conflating classical logic with formal logic, they are not the same thing. The main distinction is that classical logic allows one to deal with the limiting case of a system that is isolated enough from it's environment and observer to be considered independent and analysed as such. Using classical logic, theories can be proven, and countless of them are. Formal logic does not allow itself to do this, it is forced to acknowledge it's interactions with both it's environment and it's observer and this leads to the condition that nothing can be proven using this system of logic. It is a consequence of the infinite - by definition no closed system can be complete and no open system can be consistent - so you can never come up with a consistent system that explains everything.

This is a brilliant finding but it is completely irrelevant to this argument. It adds no value to our attempts to understand the natural world. It does not rule out or discredit classical logic in any way. It does not alter the required rigidity and repeatability of the supporting evidence for a theory before it is considered to be proven. It certainly has no impact on reason or rationality. Using Gödel's incompleteness theorems as an argument against evolution is like using relativity as an argument for Chinese traditional medicine - just because energy and matter are interchangeable does not mean your chi is going to heal your hearing when i stick needles into your foot.

The circular argument lies in the fact that Gödel's theorems are themselves not formally provable: "Belief in your theory is not rational because my theory says no theory can be proven"

Gem Windcaster, on 01 November 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

I have nothing against belief, quite the contrary - how many times to I have to say this? But as I said the above post, belief cannot be objective, and therefore empirical evidence have no effect on it's outcome. Empirical evidence has only an effect on itself, because it's a closed system. It requires an irrational human to give the empirical evidence meaning. It requires belief.

I still don't quite understand what you're trying to say. What makes the meaning we assign to empirical evidence irrational? The modern world is built on actions taken as a result of meaning we have assigned to observations. It's perfectly rational to believe something that is proven by observation. If your argument for the irrationality of belief is formal logic then I hope I have helped you to see why you are wrong.

Gem Windcaster, on 01 November 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

Summary: It requires something more than data, logic, mathematics etc. to form evidence. A thinking, believing human is needed. So go on and believe you have the truth. I commend you. But stop claiming the absolute objective truth, because it's an intellectual abomination.

You say that like the phrase "absolute objective truth" should have a standardised formal meaning that I should be aware of? All I'm saying is that evolution is a proven theory and it is thus the rational belief to hold.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 01 November 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

Try to understand what I am saying, instead of putting words in my mouth, seriously. Who said anything about science not being reasonable or rational? I certainly didn't. I said that your belief in science is irrational - specifically the theory of evolution. Specifically I said that it is not formally proven - which was what I meant when I said it was not proven. You understand the construction of logic, yet you refuse to see what I am saying.

Just to reiterate - correct me if I'm wrong - you say belief in evolution is not rational as evolution is not proven - as nothing can be formally proven. Thus no belief is rational and furthermore no belief can be judged any more or less rational than any other belief. But I shouldn't put words into your mouth because you certainly never said science is irrational, just belief in it.

I am saying evolution is not proven. I am saying a belief is not the same as being proven. I don't mean to say that it is completely irrational - I am saying it is not proven. I certainly claim my belief is rational, although not proven, just as you feel your belief is rational. But it is irrational to say it is proven when it is in fact a belief. Just copy paste and read that a couple of times, it will be easier and I don't have to repeat myself 10 more times.

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

You seem to be redefining the word rational here because from my understanding, only beliefs (and numbers) can be rational. Can you explain how belief in science is irrational but science itself is rational?

No that is not what I am saying, I am saying your definition of an unproven (imo unprovable) theory is not a belief but objective fact is irrational.

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 01 November 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

Furthermore, science is built on logical and mathematical principles, by which a theory is judged, and every day scientists use logic and mathematics to define their science. However, it is true that it is beside the point I am trying to make. I am not making a circular argument, I am showing you the futility of pure logic. You say it yourself - you have to go beyond those boundaries to truly judge a scientific theory. Because in your words:

Quote

the foundations of mathematics have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method or the method by which we judge certain propositions to be rational, reasonable, logical or substantiable.

Indeed.

You misrepresent my words. What I meant was "formal logic" - developed as an attempt to explain the foundations of mathematics - has nothing to do with Aristotle's methodology for establishing valid arguments and reasonable truth. Allow me to rephrase - you are correct in saying science is based on logic, but you are conflating classical logic with formal logic, they are not the same thing. The main distinction is that classical logic allows one to deal with the limiting case of a system that is isolated enough from it's environment and observer to be considered independent and analysed as such. Using classical logic, theories can be proven, and countless of them are. Formal logic does not allow itself to do this, it is forced to acknowledge it's interactions with both it's environment and it's observer and this leads to the condition that nothing can be proven using this system of logic. It is a consequence of the infinite - by definition no closed system can be complete and no open system can be consistent - so you can never come up with a consistent system that explains everything.

You realize that formal logic is a more pure form of logic? That formal logic was built on classical logic and math? Formal logic confines a system even more than classical logic. In this pure form of logic, theories are proven by the possibility of being disproved. In fact it has the same essence as science - namely that until another better theory comes along, and a theory is not disproved, it is counted as a valid theory. This is exactly how modern science works. It is why I have brought formal logic into the discussion, because it squarely shows what I mean when I say that evolution cannot be properly tested and therefore it's a futile theory. Copy|paste x 10.

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

This is a brilliant finding but it is completely irrelevant to this argument. It adds no value to our attempts to understand the natural world. It does not rule out or discredit classical logic in any way. It does not alter the required rigidity and repeatability of the supporting evidence for a theory before it is considered to be proven. It certainly has no impact on reason or rationality. Using Gödel's incompleteness theorems as an argument against evolution is like using relativity as an argument for Chinese traditional medicine - just because energy and matter are interchangeable does not mean your chi is going to heal your hearing when i stick needles into your foot.

I am not bashing on classical logic, I am using formal logic to explain the problem I have with the theory of evolution.

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

The circular argument lies in the fact that Gödel's theorems are themselves not formally provable: "Belief in your theory is not rational because my theory says no theory can be proven"

It is only a circular argument if you don't take into account belief and consider it a valid segment in a theory. You don't accept it as a part of the theory, so for you it becomes a circular argument. I on the other hand, as we have already established, do take belief into account - in fact I think belief is essential for any human theory. We're different that way.

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 01 November 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

I have nothing against belief, quite the contrary - how many times to I have to say this? But as I said the above post, belief cannot be objective, and therefore empirical evidence have no effect on it's outcome. Empirical evidence has only an effect on itself, because it's a closed system. It requires an irrational human to give the empirical evidence meaning. It requires belief.

I still don't quite understand what you're trying to say. What makes the meaning we assign to empirical evidence irrational? The modern world is built on actions taken as a result of meaning we have assigned to observations. It's perfectly rational to believe something that is proven by observation. If your argument for the irrationality of belief is formal logic then I hope I have helped you to see why you are wrong.

Okay I didn't mean to say that humans are always irrational, I'd like to remove the word irrational from that sentence. I am not saying that the meaning of empirical evidence is irrational, I am saying it isn't rational in itself, to have any sort of meaning it needs interpretation, it needs belief. I didn't mean to confuse you so with the word irrational. My point is that5 we assign meaning to observations, as you say, to understand the world, to make it rational. Belief in itself is not rational nor irrational, it's a relative term - because for us, if we so choose, it's rational. But rationality is not proof. You seem to confuse the two.

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 01 November 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

Summary: It requires something more than data, logic, mathematics etc. to form evidence. A thinking, believing human is needed. So go on and believe you have the truth. I commend you. But stop claiming the absolute objective truth, because it's an intellectual abomination.

You say that like the phrase "absolute objective truth" should have a standardised formal meaning that I should be aware of? All I'm saying is that evolution is a proven theory and it is thus the rational belief to hold.

No, no, and no. For you it is the rational belief to hold, but that doesn't make it proven. You could bet your life on it, and it still wouldn't be proven.

It seems to me that you think that your view is the only possible rational view that anyone could hold. You should consider the fact that your assigned meaning of the world is not necessarily the same as other people's assigned meaning. And they have as much meaning assigning powers as you do.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Gem Windcaster, on 04 November 2009 - 03:01 AM, said:

It is why I have brought formal logic into the discussion, because it squarely shows what I mean when I say that evolution cannot be properly tested and therefore it's a futile theory. Copy|paste x 10.

My dear Gem. In order for us to adequately assess Evolution, we haveto agree on the standards by which it is to be judged, and therationale of its formulation. The capital-T Truth in logic and philosophy has a very different meaning from scientific lower-case-t truth, and so we need to reconcile that point. 95% certainty, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is sufficient for science to call it lower-case-t truth. Capital-T-Truth is something that is formally unattainable. So CI is right, it is a provable lower-case-truth. And so are you, it is formally unprovable as capital-T-Truth.

Quote

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

This is a brilliant finding but it is completely irrelevant to this argument. It adds no value to our attempts to understand the natural world. It does not rule out or discredit classical logic in any way. It does not alter the required rigidity and repeatability of the supporting evidence for a theory before it is considered to be proven. It certainly has no impact on reason or rationality. Using Gödel's incompleteness theorems as an argument against evolution is like using relativity as an argument for Chinese traditional medicine - just because energy and matter are interchangeable does not mean your chi is going to heal your hearing when i stick needles into your foot.

I am not bashing on classical logic, I am using formal logic to explain the problem I have with the theory of evolution.

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

The circular argument lies in the fact that Gödel's theorems are themselves not formally provable: "Belief in your theory is not rational because my theory says no theory can be proven"

It is only a circular argument if you don't take into account belief and consider it a valid segment in a theory. You don't accept it as a part of the theory, so for you it becomes a circular argument. I on the other hand, as we have already established, do take belief into account - in fact I think belief is essential for any human theory. We're different that way.

You seriously lost me. Care to clarify? It seems to say something along the lines of "belief in all other theories is irrational."

Quote

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 01 November 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

Summary: It requires something more than data, logic, mathematics etc. to form evidence. A thinking, believing human is needed. So go on and believe you have the truth. I commend you. But stop claiming the absolute objective truth, because it's an intellectual abomination.

You say that like the phrase "absolute objective truth" should have a standardised formal meaning that I should be aware of? All I'm saying is that evolution is a proven theory and it is thus the rational belief to hold.

No, no, and no. For you it is the rational belief to hold, but that doesn't make it proven. You could bet your life on it, and it still wouldn't be proven.

It seems to me that you think that your view is the only possible rational view that anyone could hold. You should consider the fact that your assigned meaning of the world is not necessarily the same as other people's assigned meaning. And they have as much meaning assigning powers as you do.

Meaning assignment has properties of rationality, too, realize. Two plus two generally equals four, but it could equal 'butter,' it would be no less valid, but it would be more irrational (unless there was some associated system that made the assignment of 'butter' rigorous and coherent).

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 13 November 2009 - 01:15 AM