Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GOD IS DEAD
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 286 of 304 (486299)
10-18-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2008 10:13 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
With regard deductive logic Vs hypothesis based approaches to investigation:
There are 2 parts to this discussion in this context
1) Can reliable conclusions be drawn based on deductive logic as applied to incomplete physical evidence in general
2) Is it possible to apply a hypothesis based approach to areas like cosmology where we cannot directly observe the phenomenon under investigation.
The second of these questions is more technical in nature and relates to the specific evidences for current cosmological models. I would suggest that a new thread is started if we wish to head down this route.
The first of these questions however is more philosophical in nature. It pertains to the nature of science and investigation and reliability. This is where I think your whole approach fundamentally falls flat on it's face.
Whether or not a hypothesis based approach is possible in the specific case of comology you need to show that reliable conclusions can be drawn from deductive logic and incomplete evidence alone.
If you cannot do this then regardless of the viability of the available alternatives your conclusions are invalid and your whole argument will be in tatters.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2008 10:13 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2008 11:12 AM Straggler has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 287 of 304 (486307)
10-18-2008 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by onifre
10-16-2008 9:01 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Onifre writes:
The microscopic world,(quantum fields), can only be understood through physics. It's existence could not have been predicted with logic and deductive reasoning. Yes it is testable by the meer fact that it exists, but you didn't know it existed till physicist told you. Now you want to apply deductive logic to the origin of it, to me this doesn't make much sense. Just beause you say God did it doesn't help you understand how He did it, thats what science does, in this particular case it would be the science of physics.
It doesnt make sense because you are not understanding how I am applying logic and commonsense to the situation. It is not necessary to know what does or does not exists exacally, to know that THINGS exist. Those properties that do exist will have only one of two possible properties, eternal or not. I am not applying logic to the origin of anything, because THINGS exist wehther you discover them or not.
Further, I am not seeing the necessity of knowing how God or the very real possibilty of God DOING IT, applies to the very real demonstratable, deductive conclusion that there are only two choices. Choices I might add that have not been added to or subtracted from in this discussion, as I predicted.
Again, and I hope for the last time, physics only explains the nature of things, it does NOT give an answer to its origins. Origins can only be postulated using the science of physics and DEDUCTIVE REASONING against Reality. In this instance reality, physics and logic will lead you to only two logical solutions to the problem, one of which is clearly a creator. If you choose to ignore that choice, that is your choice ofcourse.
In other words, no amount of information gathered in the future will unsettle this principle. Not because its logic or deductive reasoning, but because that just the nature and reality of existence itself. The further extension of reality is logic and commonsense. Actually these two concepts, reality and logic are so intertwined, they for all intents and purposes cannot be seperated.
Again, the 2 possibilities are not science related, they are philosophical. So no, science is not held to your 2 possibilities, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Science is held to reality and the existence of this reality. If science and physics is not held to this princlple then simply provide me with another SCIENTIFIC solution that will not fall into these two categories, then you will have demonstrated that the two principles, logic and deductive reasoning are not scientific in nature. My prediction is that you cannot and will not be able to do this.
Science is the reality of the existence of things, no matter how one chooses to study it. The definition of science is "to know or have knowledge of" a specific thing, whatever that may be. The Scientific Method when incorrectly applied, ignores very basic and simple principles to avoid very simple and demonstratable conclusions. It therefore excludes vital principles that provide information to the nature and existence of things and thier possible origins.
Actually the Scientific Method violates its own principles in the fact that it extrapolates beyond the specific information it gathers and the explanation of things, to conclusions about origins or the exclusion of information (all science) demonstrating those very real posssibilites., ie a creator or designer.
You complain that I am repeating myself, well ofcourse Iam. Reality and your inability to provide any other solutions dictates that I do so. I am only repeating what reality and deductive reasoning will allw.
Again, even if God did it, how did He do it? And WHAT is eternal? Matter? Matter is not eternal. You are talking about a very microscopic scale, a quantum scale, do you understand this area of science enough to understand what 'nothingness' means? Straggler asked you if you though 'nothing' was stable, you did not seem to understand that question.
Before exploring your site provded lets set a little ground work. There may be some sense in which "nothing" could be understood from a physics standpoint. However, there is most certainly a postion it can be understood from a logical and deductive methodology. Things exist, therefore it is a reality and reasonable that nothing, absoletely nothing could have the potential to have not existed.
These two principles are etched in reality and reason. If nothing, absolutely nothing were here, we ofcourse would not be asking the question and it would not matter.
To illustrate this point I will answer your question, "what is eternal"? You used the word iin the sense that one could continuously walk around the earth forever without stopping, correct. But would not this illustration preclude the fact that the person had to start at some point? Secondly, even if you imagined him, her, it, having never actually starting, but a continuous unending walk, then it would still involve the concept of eternal in the limit sense, given your limited illustration, in other words your analogy has obvious limitations.
Heres the point. the mere fact that you can see that the possiblity of something on a small scale as eternal, should be indicative of the fact that all things in existence or something else besides themselves MUST of necesssity be eternal in character. There are no other solutions.
Physics concepts of "nothing", or that which it is described as nothingness is limited in reality and reason.
Basically, particles coming in and out of existance from 'nothingness' because nothingness is unstable.
What exacally would it take for nothing to produce an organized particle, send it through a portal and have in start to function in its proper place. Certainly physics does not consider that these particles are actually coming form nowhere and actual "nothingness".
Actually no person in thier right mind would even consider this as an acceptable explanation, certainly not phycisists Certainly, it may appear as though they are coming from nowhere and nothing, but when we understand reality and how it functions, one would certainly not adopt, this view.
Again, what is being described as nothing in these instances would certainly have an actual source in reality. One would need to demonstrate that these particles are actually coming from nothingness to demonstate the non-existence of an eternal universe or the non-existence of an eternal creator himself.
If one asserts that these particles are actually coming from nothingness, he would be obligated to demonstrate that "nothingness" is ANYTHING in the first place, stable, unstable, or anything at all. You are assuming that these things are coming in and out of existence from something you have not even demonstratd to be factual in the first place. Your first assertion cannot even be tested and that is that "nothingness" is anything other that what it should be in the first place, absolutely nothing. You are attributing a concept to a situation that you cannot even observe. You cant even get out of the starting blocks to demonstrate that any qualites or characteristics should describe by nothingness other than nothing at all. How are you going to test your second theory that these particles are actually coming form nothing, when you cant even demonstrate the first premise.
Your task in this instance is insurmountable to say the least.
The scriptures and deductive reasoning have ananswer for this seeming problem. Hebrews 11:1-3 states
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the EVIDENCE of things not seen. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that that what is seen was not made out of what is visible".
In these very few verses you have both reason and expalnatin for even the things you are describing. The evindece suggested in these verse is the evidence of reality and deductive logic, so that its conclusions are unavoidable.
So that what appears to be coming from nothingness is actually coming from another reality. A reality that both things present and those unseen will not allow us to void certain demonstable conclusions.
Yeah so? Does my logic help physicist understand the complexity of the origin of the universe? No, and neither does yours. All you are doing is justifying your belief. You can't prove anything is eternal, especially not in the quantum world, and you can't prove that a highly complex intelligence just appeared magically out of nothingness...unless you are saying that God is a quantum fluctuation? Because at least that has been observed.
It is interesting thay you keep asserting that I cant PROVE this or that, as if you can. Certainly you are aware that your understanding and inspections of things gets you no closer to proving anything, you do understand this correct?
The arguments that I am advancing in this connection are testable by the best possible information in reality, quantum physics, notwithstanding. Physcis has not unsettled these premises and they have stood the test of time for thousnads of years, because there are no other solutions as deduced by the science of deductive reasoning. Example, using deductive reasoning look how simple it was to dismiss your argument about nothinness. Reality, reason and commonsense demonstrate that the first and only real definition of "nothing" cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise. Giving it another definiton and assuming it could produce this or that is both the height of assmption and ignorance.
Things exist, they did not ome from nowhere or nothingness, if we are going to be honest about such concepts in the first place. the only conclusions are that they are eternal in character (and I think we can all understand the usage of that word) or and eternal creator brought these properties into existence. They are the only choices and imagining something coming from actaul nothingness does not help your case.
Tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that "nothingness" should be described as anything but what the word suggests? Where did you arrive at your highly testable conclusion that it would have any properties at all, stable or unstable or whatever you want to call it. You cant even demonstrate this assertion, much less that these particles are coming from actual nothingness. And you accuse me of not being able to prove this or that, give me a break.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by onifre, posted 10-16-2008 9:01 AM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 11:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 292 by cavediver, posted 10-18-2008 12:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 288 of 304 (486310)
10-18-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Straggler
10-18-2008 10:07 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Straggler writes:
Whether or not a hypothesis based approach is possible in the specific case of comology you need to show that reliable conclusions can be drawn from deductive logic and incomplete evidence alone.
I have already done this over and over. Incomplete evidence does not exist in these conclusions. Carried to thier logical conclusions and the only possible conclusions, does not describe "incomplete".
D Bertot
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 10:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 11:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 289 of 304 (486312)
10-18-2008 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2008 10:45 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Physcis has not unsettled these premises and they have stood the test of time for thousnads of years, because there are no other solutions as deduced by the science of deductive reasoning. Example, using deductive reasoning look how simple it was to dismiss your argument about nothinness. Reality, reason and commonsense demonstrate that the first and only real definition of "nothing" cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise. Giving it another definiton and assuming it could produce this or that is both the height of assmption and ignorance.
Where did you arrive at your highly testable conclusion that it would have any properties at all, stable or unstable or whatever you want to call it. You cant even demonstrate this assertion, much less that these particles are coming from actual nothingness.
It can be shown that particles do indeed "pop in and out of existence" in the vacuum of space.
No this is not the same as true nothingness. But this would seem to defy the version of "reality, reason and commonsense" that you hold so dearly. Would your deductive logic methodology been able to tell us that the vacuum of space behaves in this way? No. Because it is an insufficiant methodology for drawing conclusions about the physical world.
Reality, as it turns out, often features things that defy common-sense notions. Which is why deductive subjective logic and incomplete evidence is an insufficiant basis for drawing reliable conclusions.
You still have not addressed this. Message 264
Until you do your arguemnts hold no weight at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2008 10:45 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2008 11:48 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 293 by ICANT, posted 10-18-2008 12:54 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 290 of 304 (486316)
10-18-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2008 11:12 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
I have already done this over and over.
Where?
Incomplete evidence does not exist in these conclusions.
Of course it does. How can you have ALL of the physical evidence required to make conclusions regarding cosmological origins? How would you even know when you have ALL of the required evidence?
I would suggest that you have very little physical evidence and a lot of subjectively derived deductive "logic".
Evidence is always incomplete. That is the nature of scientific investigation. That is the reason hypothesis based approach is required in order to form valid conclusions.
Your methods are invalid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2008 11:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 291 of 304 (486317)
10-18-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Straggler
10-18-2008 11:24 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Straggler
No this is not the same as true nothingness. But this would seem to defy the version of "reality, reason and commonsense" that you hold so dearly. Would your deductive logic methodology been able to tell us that the vacuum of space behaves in this way? No. Because it is an insufficiant methodology for drawing conclusions about the physical world.
Thanks atleast for that admission on nothingness.
Deductive reasoning does not need to explain all details of reality to know that certain ultimate conclusions follow, those being the ones I have repeatedly demonstrated.
Reality, deductive reasoning and Hebrews 11:13, explain all of these in the context of unavoidable conclusions. Insufficiant Methodology is excally the opposite discription of what deductive reasoning and reality demonstrate, your assertion notwihtstanding.
You still have not addressed this. Deductive Logic and Evidence Based Investigation (Message 264)
Until you do your arguemnts hold no weight at all.
I believe I have answered in substance the basis of your conclusions in 264. If you feel I have missed a point bring it up an I will address it. I read it a while back and saw nothing that I had missed.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 11:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 2:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 292 of 304 (486320)
10-18-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2008 10:45 AM


Re: Heart of the matter
Those properties that do exist will have only one of two possible properties, eternal or not.
For this level of discussion, I think this is a fairly safe conclusion.
But it is not to this that the original objection was raised. You stated that either the Universe was eternal, or that God had created it. You seem to have moved your goalposts yet again.
In your simple scenario, you have time either extending infinitely into the past, or you have time only extending a finite distance into the past (there are of course much more complex possibilities but that would be for a another day.)
Please complete your original argument by demonstrating how the scenario where time only extends a finite distance into the past leads inevitably to the conclusion that some entity 'created' the Universe. For completeness, you will also need to argue that a universe extending infinitely far back in time could not be created by this same 'entity'.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : Title change

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2008 10:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 293 of 304 (486322)
10-18-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Straggler
10-18-2008 11:24 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
It can be shown that particles do indeed "pop in and out of existence" in the vacuum of space.
Where was this vacuum of space located?
It could not be outside of the hot little thing at T=10-43.
There was an absence of some thing outside of that entity. I have been told there was no thing outside of that hot little thing. No time, no gravity, no space, no energy, no mass and no matter.
Now if there was some thing, what was it?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 11:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Admin, posted 10-18-2008 1:04 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 298 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 6:26 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 299 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 6:57 PM ICANT has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 294 of 304 (486324)
10-18-2008 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by ICANT
10-18-2008 12:54 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
Hi ICANT,
Please do not post to this thread. Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by ICANT, posted 10-18-2008 12:54 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2008 6:04 PM Admin has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 295 of 304 (486327)
10-18-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2008 11:48 AM


Deductive Logic and Evidence Based Investigation: Part 2 (The Revenge)
This is a modified version of a previous post of mine. The original was made in a one on one debate relating to almost identical issues some time ago. I am hoping that Admins won't mind me re-presenting large parts of that post to a potentially wider audience. It is not my intention to make a habit of regurgitating my own material in a flurry of cut and paste mania.
Bertot writes:
Insufficiant Methodology is excally the opposite discription of what deductive reasoning and reality demonstrate, your assertion notwihtstanding.
BERTOT’S ARGUMENT
Bertot’s argument can be summed up thus -
(empirical evidence)+( deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
Therefore as long as conclusions are based on deductive logic and the evidence available they are valid regardless of the nature of the conclusions drawn. All logically valid conclusions are permitted whether they result in directly testable material conclusions or not. Bertot then goes on to argue that by applying logic to the available evidence in this way God is the logical conclusion regarding cosmological origins.
STRAGGLER'S POSITION
As I shall demonstrate the above argument is deeply flawed. Bertot's methodology results in intrinsically unreliable conclusions to which the only logical practical alternative is a hypothesis based approach, or conventional science as we know it.
A hypothesis based approach, as I shall show, is required both to maximise objectivity and to tackle the inevitable problem of incomplete evidence. A hypothesis based approach will be demonstrated to be the best method of overcoming the practical limitations imposed on any investigation of the natural world, and will also be demonstrated to be the method by which we are able to draw the most reliable conclusions possible. Bertot's methodology and resulting conclusions will thus be shown to be invalid, unreliable and inferior.
RIVAL THEORIES
Is it possible for two theories based on the same evidence and with the application of logic to come to alternative and opposing conclusions?
(empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusion)
If the above methodology is applied to produce conclusion A and conclusion B from the same set of empirical evidence (where A and B are mutually exclusive ) what happens?
(empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(conclusion A)
(empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(conclusion B)
According to Bertot's proposed methodology both conclusions are valid and to be considered reliable if the logic applied is valid in each case.
However either A or B must obviously be wrong by the law of contradiction
We cannot therefore say that both A and B are reliable conclusions.
Thus if two mutually exclusive but logically valid conclusions are both considered reliable by Bertot’s methodology the methodology itself is invalidated. If Bertot's argument and methodology is to remain intact Bertot’s methodology can only ever allow ONE reliable conclusion from any given set of empirical evidence. Yet the history of science is littered with examples of rival theories drawing different logical conclusions from the same empirical evidence. How so? Are all such cases examples of the misapplication of logic?
THE SUBJECTIVE APPLICATION OF POOR LOGIC
So how has it come to be that two (or more) mutually exclusive theories can both co-exist. Must all but one be the result of the poor application of logic to physical evidence?
It is certainly true that human beings are not perfectly logical creatures. It is certainly true that whether consciously or unconsciously our desires often lead us to conclusions that seem very logical but which are in fact not. Can we therefore attribute the existence of rival theories to poor logic alone?
(empirical evidence)+(poor logic)=(unreliable conclusion)
This would superficially seem to account for the existence of rival theories whilst allowing Bertot's methodology to remain theoretically intact. However this just raises an additional problem. Being the logically imperfect creatures that we indisputably are how are we to guarantee our ability to differentiate poor logic from valid logic? If we are to overcome this problem we need an objective method of ensuring that our logic is valid. Simply asserting "it is obvious" is not sufficient as "obviousness" itself is subjective. If it was "obvious" rival theories due to poor logic would never arise in the first place.
So even if Bertot's methodology is valid the ability to objectively know when valid, rather than poor, logic has been applied remains a serious problem. Subjectively derived unreliable conclusions are an inevitable possibility when human beings are involved. However Bertot's problems lie deeper than this as the subjective application of poor logic alone cannot account for all rival theories. To illustrate this consider the following trivial example.
Example: We are presented with a room in which a full glass of water sits. We are asked to form a conclusion as to how the water came to be in the glass.
(glass of water)+(deductive logic)=(conclusion A) = The glass was filled with water and brought into the room
(glass of water)+(deductive logic)=(conclusion B) = Somebody came into the room and filled the glass of water from a jug
Question: Which of these two theories is the result of poor logic? Which one is necessarily and logically wrong?
The answer is that neither is necessarily wrong. Both are logically viable theories.
Remember that if two logically valid theories can both legitimately exist then Bertot's whole methodology is invalidated.
(empirical evidence)+( deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
Both conclusions cannot both be reliable. One must be wrong. Hence even valid logic does not necessarily render conclusions reliable.
So not only does Bertot's theory rely on a non-existent method of objectively identifying valid and invalid subjectively applied logic it actually fails even if all the logic applied is guaranteed to be valid.
Bertot's theory lies in tatters because she has made the fatal mistake of ignoring one of the key practical features of evidence based investigation. Namely the problem of incomplete evidence.
INCOMPLETE EVIDENCE
Bertot’s deductive logic methodology is actually perfectly valid in one particular and very special instance.
Where we have ALL of the possible evidence and can guarantee valid objectively applied logic the methodology works superbly.
(Complete empirical evidence)+(guaranteed valid logic)=(wholly reliable conclusion)
Then the issue of rival theories becomes moot.
With the complete set of all the empirical evidence and the guaranteed correct application of valid logic only one conclusion is indeed possible.
The law of contradiction remains unbroken and we know that we have reached the most reliable conclusion it is possible to reach (the truth?).
In the case of ALWAYS having ALL of the available evidence the application of guaranteed valid logic alone would be a perfectly acceptable and valid method of drawing reliable conclusions.
OMNISCIENCE REQUIRED
However is it possible to EVER have ALL the required evidence?
More importantly for science - Is it ever possible for us to KNOW that we have ALL the required evidence?
Unless we claim omniscience (which alas is not permitted and which would make any scientific investigation utterly pointless anyway) the answer to the second question at least must be NO!
There is always the possibility that new evidence will surface and that our theories and conclusions will be refuted. In addition we still have not addressed the question of being objectively certain that our logic is indeed valid. Thus our 'equation' necessarily becomes
(incomplete empirical evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions)
Given that we cannot ever know if we have all the required evidence and given that our aim is to make reliable conclusions any method that we apply to draw conclusions MUST assume that the evidence available is insufficient.
The combination of incomplete evidence and potentially invalid logic necessarily leads us to unreliable conclusions and is thus no basis on which to draw any conclusions at all. Simply asserting that more evidence is required is just not recognising the nature of the problem. We can never know how much evidence will be required to make our conclusions reliable.
No matter how valid our logic we must always assume the appliance of logic alone to incomplete evidence is insufficient to meet our stated aim of drawing reliable conclusions
Thus Bertot's methodology irretrievably falls apart at the seams to all practical intents and purposes.
REAL SCIENCE - THE WAY FORWARDS
So if our evidence must be considered incomplete, our logic potentially flawed and our resulting conclusions unreliable where does that leave us?
Despair not. There is an answer. The answer is the scientific method.
Not only does the scientific method tackle the fact that our evidence must be necessarily considered incomplete, it embraces this fact. Not only does the scientific method acknowledge that our logic may be subjective and invalid, it confronts this head-on.
Consider the following alternative form of the equation we have been considering up until now
(incomplete empirical evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(hypothesis)
A hypothesis is NOT a conclusion as such. It is something which needs to be tested against that which it purports to describe in order to be validated or refuted. That is the key difference.
I could at this point cite dictionary definitions of the term 'hypothesis'. I could refer to great reams of literature written by far better men than I regarding the scientific method and its application.
On the basis that we are all familiar with the basic concepts I will not bother. With regard to the application of the scientific method to nature specifically (I.e. natural science) a couple of comments are however necessary in the context of this debate.
1) As applied to nature a hypothesis based approach can, in my view, be encapsulated thus - "Any fool can make a theory fit the facts BUT only those closest to the truth can hope to find that the facts fit the theory". In other words constructing theories that comply with existing evidence is easy to do and highly open to subjective interpretation disguised as "logic". However theories that reveal new aspects of nature which are then confirmed have passed the most difficult test it is possible to apply to any theory. The workings of nature will not obey our theories no matter how much we may wish it. The workings of nature will not obey our theories no matter how logical we might consider them to be. Hence prediction as the gold standard of evaluation in terms assessing theories and hypotheses.
2) A hypothesis based approach is necessarily tentative. Hypotheses are refuted or verified but never proven. By building our hypotheses on the foundations of evidence revealed by previously tested and verified hypotheses we can build up a body of knowledge of which we can have a high degree of certainty. With enough evidence, enough verification and enough corroboration from other interrelated scientific disciplines employing the same exacting tests against other aspects of nature we can even reach the point where we consider our theories to be factual descriptions of the world to all practical intents and purposes. Despite this we must always recognise that the evidence on which all of this is based must be assumed to be incomplete and thus our theories to be tentative to some degree at least.
A hypothesis based approach is the practical means by which we can make the MOST reliable conclusions whilst recognising that the evidence available to us must always be considered incomplete and open to the subjective application of logic.
If the stated aim of science is to draw the most reliable conclusions regarding the natural world then the scientific method is what it is because it is the best means we have of ensuring that this aim is achieved.
RELIABLE CONCLUSIONS
If we apply our current 'equation' -
(incomplete empirical evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(hypothesis)
to the natural world what outcomes are possible?
As previously stated a hypothesis is not a conclusion in itself. A hypothesis needs to be tested against that which it purports to describe. The exact nature of these tests will very much depend on the nature of the investigation and the phenomenon under consideration. Studying the evolution of the universe using a hypothesis based approach, for example, is obviously very different from studying a phenomenon that can be repeatedly observed under laboratory conditions. However this must not be a reason to lower the standards of evidence that science demands. The standards of scientific evidence are such that if conclusions regarding particular physical phenomenon have not yet been rendered reliable by means of verified hypotheses then ignorance must be acknowledged ahead of unreliable claims.
Creationists seem often to assume that where science acknowledges ignorance (cosmological origins for example) the position of science is inferior to their creator based argument purely on the basis that an answer is better than no answer. This is folly and demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the nature of science. It is because science will not make unwarranted claims of reliability that science is so successful. This perceived weakness is actually the foundation of science's greatest strengths. Untested alternatives of the sort Bertot is proposing suffer from both the subjective application of logic and the problem of incomplete evidence. They are inherently unreliable.
CONCLUSION
Bertot's deductive logic methodology has been shown to lead to inherently unreliable conclusions. The use of hypotheses as an alternative method of establishing reliable theories has been demonstrated to be superior. If the aim of a given investigation is to draw the most reliable conclusions possible given the evident practical limitations of knowledge then there is frankly no contest between the two positions.
The conclusions Bertot makes regarding cosmological origins have been made using flawed methods of reasoning. As such any conclusions are inherently unreliable.
Bertot's position has been shown to be both logically invalid and inadequate in any practical sense. Her methodologies have been found wanting, her arguments dissected and her conclusions utterly and totally invalidated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2008 11:48 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2008 5:59 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 301 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2008 12:16 AM Straggler has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 296 of 304 (486337)
10-18-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Straggler
10-18-2008 2:29 PM


Re: Deductive Logic and Evidence Based Investigation: Part 2 (The Revenge)
BERTOT’S ARGUMENT
Bertot’s argument can be summed up thus -
(empirical evidence)+( deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
Geez moniez, this entire post will take some time to digest and respond to, it will take a day or two.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 2:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 7:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 297 of 304 (486340)
10-18-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Admin
10-18-2008 1:04 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
ADMIN writes:
Hi ICANT,
Please do not post to this thread. Thanks.
As a favor I would ask that ICANT be able to respond to this post as well, if possible. Seeing I am getting inundated from several sides. While I am happy to do it myself,it takes longer if I dont have assistance. Perhaps ICANT could present points of view I am missing. Its just a request but it would help nontheless. Thanks for your consideration in this respect.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Admin, posted 10-18-2008 1:04 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Admin, posted 10-19-2008 5:48 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 298 of 304 (486342)
10-18-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by ICANT
10-18-2008 12:54 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
ICANT writes:
There was an absence of some thing outside of that entity. I have been told there was no thing outside of that hot little thing. No time, no gravity, no space, no energy, no mass and no matter.
Now if there was some thing, what was it?
I never implied that something IS out there. I only said we cannot fully dismiss the possibility that hypotetically it was at least possible that some other form of existence might reside there, that's not bound by the limitations of our spacetime. I never implied it was the home of Jesus, Buddah or Mohammed, if that's what you are hinting at.
BTW, I don't think we can understand what you meant by "Now if there was some thing, what was it?". How should anyone know what WAS there at some point in the past in the uncreated? Or did you mean "If there was something, what could it have been?"
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by ICANT, posted 10-18-2008 12:54 PM ICANT has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 299 of 304 (486343)
10-18-2008 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by ICANT
10-18-2008 12:54 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
ICANT
Again this is not the place for this discussion.
My point was simply that common sense notions are an insufficient basis on which to make conclusions regarding the nature of physical reality.
Common sense would not suggest that the vacuum of space is teeming with particles popping in and out of existence. But this is what happens.
Forming theories of cosmological origins on the basis of common sense, as Bertot is insisting upon, is an unreliable and invalid method of making such conclusions.
That is the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by ICANT, posted 10-18-2008 12:54 PM ICANT has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 300 of 304 (486346)
10-18-2008 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2008 5:59 PM


Re: Deductive Logic and Evidence Based Investigation: Part 2 (The Revenge)
Geez moniez, this entire post will take some time to digest and respond to, it will take a day or two.
That's fine. Quality rather than rapidity is preferred. I am confident that my argumets will stand up to scrutiny. But I look forward to a challenging rebuttal!! The original posting I referred to was with Rob in the 'Great Debate' area. We got cut short because he got himself banned half way through
I know it was a long analysis but I think this is one of the key points of differenc between the scientific and the creationist perspecitives.
Not all evidence is equal, not all methods are equally viable and not all conclusions are equally reliable.
The reasoned arguments as to which positions are superior, or even valid, are fundamental to the EvC debate in the widest sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2008 5:59 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024