The use of logic in establishing truths

So just like the Discovery Institute, is it your position that science should be redefined to include the supernatural? That would explain a lot about why you're arguing as you are.We're not using some special definition of science. Our definition of science is the same one employed by scientists everywhere around the globe of all races and religions. Science is natural, falsifiable, replicable, predictive, with the goal of building theoretical frameworks of understanding around bodies of evidence. You're misunderstanding the principle of tentativity. The fact that no knowledge is certain doesn't mean we possess no knowledge. But in science no knowledge or theory approaches 100% certainty. There are no axioms (or at least very few axioms) within science.But scientific knowledge in which we are able to establish great confidence through experimentation that verifies theoretical predictions becomes accepted. It never becomes established as true beyond doubt. That would never happen in science. Tentativity requires that nothing ever be accepted as 100% certain within science.That you misunderstand science and logic and axioms is made clear by your lengthy exercise attempting to elevate the "Dead men tell no tales" folk saying to an incontrovertibly true scientific axiom. Have you ever even heard of a scientific axiom? We have a gravitational theory, not a gravitational axiom. We have Einstein's theory of relativity, not Einstein's axiom of relativity. We have Boyle's Law and thermodynamic laws, not Boyle's axiom or thermodynamic axioms. What you're attempting to do is so wrong in so many ways its no wonder that the responses are spread all over the map.--Percy

G = 6.672*10 ^ -11 Nm^2/kg^2 It's a universal constant.

When JB says gravity he means the force of the gravitation field, which of course varies widely.When you say gravity you mean the gravitational constant, which is considered a universal constant.You both seem to be making accurate statements that neither of you should be arguing with.--Percy

I was talking about the Force of Gravity, which is what physics tends to refer to with respect to the word Gravity. I wasn't talking about the mathematical constant because Dawn used the words which I equated to be referring to the force, since I don't take a mathematical constant to be the same as a principle.

or in short (as usual), what Percy said.

quote:

---

From the m-w Dictionary:

​

mathematics. One entry found.

​

1 : the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations

​

Wiki:
Formal science

​

A formal science is an academic study that is predominantly concerned with abstract formal systems, for instance, logic, mathematics, and the theoretical branches of computer science, information theory, and statistics.

---

Not while my blood is still warm!Anyway Dawn "so he's dead (as long as he's not jesus)" I'll agree if no-one else does that he's not "going to tell tales". What was your point because this has been dragging on for so long your just giving everyone more reason to take the piss.

Ok fellas, this is way off track Only with respect to the inverse square of the distance from the center of gravity.I think I know what JB means. I.e. that if he dangled from a spring on the north pole and measured the stretch he would get a different measurement if he dangled from the same spring
on the equator. My point was that gravity is universal and applies the same no matter where you are and hence F = GMm/r^2.

Not what? I don't see anything in my post that you've refuted with the dictionary. Mathematics is mathematics, not science. My point was Euclid's fifth postulate; it's an axiom that is accepted not because its true or false; you choose whether or accept it or not to determine what kind of geometry you'll be doing.It's like all axioms in that regard. They form the basis of formal systems, but moreover, they're selected to form the basis of formal systems, for purposes of argument. They may or may not be true statements about the world we inhabit, but their acceptance as axiomatic has almost nothing to do with their truth. They're assumed to be true, without justification, except insofar as they're justified by how useful or interesting a formal system they establish.

Aren't M and m relativistic?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

I'm not really sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing here. The gravitational constant is assumed to be universal...I think we agree on that. I'm not sure what you mean that it applies the same no matter where you are. The force of gravity changes. In your formula above, M, m, and r are all variables (e.g., gravity changes depending on your elevation).

In this sense it's not given. It's taken. Not necessarily if I understand you correctly. I of the minority here take some things for granted as in axiomatic which you may not. For example, I've familiarized myself with such things as the Biblical prophecies, phenominal personal experience and such over the past 62 years since my conversion to the extent that I take the fact that God exists for granted as in axiomatic.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

Some people think that is self evident. Using only logic you cannot tell their self-evident truth from yours. Using the testing against evidence you cannot demonstrate that it is always false. Therefore your statement is not a self-evident truth by logic alone or through scientific testing. Let me put it to you this way: every time you deny that the statement "dead men tell no tales" cannot be demonstrated to be 100% absolutely and positively true, you confirm my statement that you cannot get everybody to agree on a single thing being true. But you fail to understand that we do not need to actually demonstrate that your argument is false to show that it is not 100% absolutely and positively true - all we have to show is that it can be logically questioned, that the truth is not self-evident in the statement, and that HAS been done by presenting evidence of people who would not see your statement as necessarily true.You have argued that you can derive fact by logic alone: you have failed to demonstrate that. You actually admit that failure by demanding some objective evidence. Keep disagreeing - all you do is confirm my statement that you can't get everyone to agree on a truth.But again, there is an easy alternative for you: there must be some other truth you can provide as an example, unless the only one is that "dead men tell no tales" which is not much to build a theology on.1+1=2? Depends on our agreement on the definition of '1' and '2' ... which is a statement of the assumptions made of what they mean.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : alwaysEdited by RAZD, : clarity

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You're mixing terms. A lot of people "take it for granted" that God exists - a lot of them are evolutionists and big-bangists. But, as people are beating their head sgainst the wall trying to explain, that isn't axiomatic even to people who "take it for granted".Taking for granted that God exists in a general sense is not the same as it being axiomatic in a specific sense. Axiomatic (again ) requires an agreement for the purpose of discussion. As far as that goes, I consider myself a minority of one. You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts and you're not entitled to your own axioms.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Why? Your only argument left is that we must agree with you, not because your argument is valid but because you think so. If this statement is true, then at some point you also need to "acquiesce and acknowledge the OBVIOUS and accept that which is clearly demonstratable.(sic)"If you don't think you need to do so then your argument is just plain wrong if not silly and self serving. And it clearly is not "INCONTROVERTIBLE" (spelled it right that time - you're learning something?). But you don't know for sure and you cannot absolutely prove that it never has happened. You are assuming that what you believe is true has not happened. Some people claim that the story of Lazarus in the bible is evidence of an actual was dead man actually talking. There are other stories as well, from almost every corner of the globe -- how can there be such evidence without a grain of truth? Can you really claim you KNOW? This is clearly muddy thinking. You cannot state your premises clearly, nor provide demonstration of their validity. Try it - fill in the blank: It should be easy to state it clearly if you are familiar with logic. Again, your statement of the veracity of a statement is not evidence of it, nor is your record of accurate use of words one to rely on, nor is your ability to make a valid (to say nothing of a sound) logical argument demonstrated. Your favorite argument is the logical fallacy of incredulity - incredulity that anyone has the gall to disagree with you. While I agree that it is as much proof as any argument can have, I don't agree that it is absolute proof: it rests on assumptions. Just because no argument can do better does not mean that it suddenly becomes true either. Once again you have an invalid logical structure here, a missing premise (or are you just assuming that we will know what you mean?).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Actually, what we are talking about - and what you need to be talking about - is the evidence that the statement is not a self-evident truth, not the evidence for whether or not it actually IS true. Why? Because that is the evidence that applies to your argument.What you are doing is confusing the evidence that the statement IS true with the evidence that the truth is self-evident from the statement alone. Lots of true statements appear false and lots of false statements appear true, and their truth or falseness has nothing to do with whether the statement appears true or false just from the statement itself.Your argument is that you can derive "FACT in reality" from logic alone, and to do this you must start with 100% absolute and positive true premises - not just axioms or self-evident truths that are assumed to be true for the sake of an argument. If you have to assume a truth then you can only end up with a tentative conclusion -- it is tentatively true only so long as the premises remain true (iff* the structure is valid).To do this with logic alone all you have are the statements themselves, no evidence of an objective external reality, and the evidence of whether or not everyone would see they are true from the evidence of the statement alone (that is what self-evident means yes?)So every piece of evidence, from mythology to religion to anecdote to future possibilities, that actually demonstrates that there are people who will not see this statement as being true shows that it is NOT self evident to them -- BY DEFINITION. Therefore your premise is falsified - the one that there are self-evident truths or axioms that are true without being assumed to be true for the sake of an argument.Logic alone does not allow you to conclude that axioms or self-evident truths are anything BUT statements that are assumed to be true for the sake of the argument. How indeed. You seem to have that ability mastered.Zombie - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A zombie is a reanimated corpse. Stories of zombies originated in the Afro-Caribbean spiritual belief system of Vodou, which told of the dead being raised as workers by a powerful sorcerer. ...

​

In the Middle Ages, it was commonly believed that the souls of the dead could return to earth and haunt the living. The belief in revenants (someone who has returned from the dead) are well documented by contemporary European writers of the time. According to the Encyclopedia of Things that Never Were[4], particularly in France during the Middle Ages, the revenant rises from the dead usually to avenge some crime committed against the entity, most likely a murder. The revenant usually took on the form of an emaciated corpse or skeletal human figure, and wandered around graveyards at night. The "draugr" of medieval Norse mythology were also believed to be the corpses of warriors returned from the dead to attack the living. The zombie appears in several other cultures worldwide, including China, Japan, the Pacific, India, and the Native Americans.

---

The point is not whether the statement itself is actually true - that is actually irrelevant to the argument in question - but whether the statement's truth is self evident from the statement alone. No, you still sound like someone who has made up their mind regardless of the evidence to the contrary. If you were a skeptic you would be much more careful - tentative - in your claims of proof and invented fact.Enjoy.* - where iff is the logic convention for "if and only if"Edited by RAZD, : the rest of the argumentEdited by RAZD, : clarity

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.