Stag writes
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.
Well Ill give you credit for getting a few and I mean a few things right In Bertot's(reality's) position. I never said ALL conclusions drawn from deductive resonong were always correct. I said that those conclusions drawn against reality and axiomatic truths are correct and the conclusions irresistible. I did not say God is THE ONLY logical choice I said he was one of only two possibiltes, and that for all intents and purposes he is the MOST logical choice.
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.
Since none of the above is my position or its conclusions, it would follow that you are attacking a straw man you set up. So by all means knock down your straw man. To say that a HYPO approach is the best approach is both nonsense and a direct contradiction of terms and ideas. A hypothesis is by the very nature of the case not direct evidence of a thing. In this instance, theories and hypothesis do not assist one in knowing the origins of things.
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.
Niether of the two logical possibilites are a logical impossibiltity. If I said both were true at the sametime, that would be a logical contradiction and impossibility. Actually both are logical possibilites not reliable conclusions. In that instance you are makiing me say they are both true at the same time. That is not what I said or even implied.
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?
Your conclusion is based on invalid reasoning as I have just demonstrated.
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?
You are waxing philosophical Straggler, stay on point.
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.
More waxing Straggler. To assume that someone or anyone could not misuse or misapply logic is both silly and unreasonable. You do realize there are people that still believe we did not go to the moon, correct, or that six million Jews being killed was a myth, correct. Since you have not demonstrated that my position is subjective or invalid or "it is bovious", none of these things apply to my contentions.
You do realize you could cercumvent all of this who ha, by simply giving me another choice to the cause of things and you would crush my premise to the ground. However, if this is the best you can do I will follow you down the bunny trail
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?
How did the room get there and what is it made of?
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.
In you scenerio yes, but your analogy is limited to the actaul situation at hand, therefore your analogy is not applicable or correct. You need to be talking about the room not the glass.
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.
Bertot is not a SHE, I only wish I were at times, but that is another argument that I will have with myself, thank you. Wait a minute here, did I think that or say it, oh crap.
You have not demonstrated that my theory lacks any evidence at all, because no matter what is discovered it will not unsettle my argument. Things exist, no matter the nature of them, there will only be two possibilites irregardless. No evidence is lacking to demonstrate this axiom.
(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)
Omniscience is not required to have a valid conclusion with axiomatic truths. I exist, things exist, to deny this very real axiom would simply be silly. Do I need omniscience to know this truth, obviously not. Even if its all dream, its somebodys dream.
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.
Incomplete evidence does not NOT exist to the question of the existence of things. Your assumption is invalid and unwarrented. There are only two choices because there are only two valid, logical, evidentual possibilites, nothing will change this premise. If I could show you ETERNITY itself the results would be the same.
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
By all means search away friend. This is some fine thinking and jargon but the scienctific method includes deductive reasoning in its research, before during and after any evaluation of anything. Its just that deductive reasoning in the question of this context superceeds any and all methods to the question of things. No other method will remove this truth.
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
I am not certain who you talked to to come to a conclusion about creationist, but it was not me. The only inferior position is the one that does not acknowledge the reality of axiomatic truths. The existence of Gid lies squarely within reliable claims of reason, reality and evidenctial support.
I will give you one thing you do know how to song and dance around an obivous inabilty to demonstrate a position otherwise.
Your contentions are based on two false presuppositions. First, you are assuming that I am saying you can prove the existence of God, Im not. Secondly you are assuming that there is another logical possibilty besides the two, by arguing that I am involving myself in subjective conclusions. My friend it does not matter what else is out there, the logical conclusion is based on the property of existence itself, that is the fact that things exist in the first place. The property and reality of existence warrent that there are no other alternatives. Nothing could be more objective than that.
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.
I suppose if you hear yourself say this enough you think people will believe it. There is simply no way to unsettle this position. Its not my postion, its reality. If you could have provided another solution, not in reality, just in the deductive process you would have done it along time ago. You know you cannot, that is the reason for all the rehtoric.
Reality is reality, Im sorry thats just the way it is.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
