Why religion is dumb - reason 4 (science)

Originally posted by yousers
Wow, great insight. Since you have already put a dent in the truth-producing ability of the scientific method, I might also add a few stipulations to your comment about "arguments...whose conclusion must follow from the premises, also known as deductions." Deduction carries with it the assumption that the premises are true. This must be the case in orde ...[text shortened]... l point is that truth cannot be the product of induction, deduction, or any combination of both.

This is probably what you meant to say:

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it."
- G.K. Chesterton

To the extent that the method has a "truth-producing ability", I didn't put a dent in it. I described it and left it as I found it.

Originally posted by yousers
Wow, great insight. Since you have already put a dent in the truth-producing ability of the scientific method, I might also add a few stipulations to your comment about "arguments...whose conclusion must follow from the premises, also known as deductions." Deduction carries with it the assumption that the premises are true. This must be the case in orde ...[text shortened]... l point is that truth cannot be the product of induction, deduction, or any combination of both.

No, deduction doesn't carry with it the assumption that the premises are true. Deduction is a form of reasoning that insures that if the premises are true, the conclusion will be true also. In other words, deduction is the form of reasoning that is necessarily truth-preserving. This is why we distinguish between valid arguments and sound arguments. Sound arguments are valid arguments with true premises.

Nobody is claiming that truth is the product of argument, whether deductive or inductive, so your final point is irrelevant. Arguments aim at arriving at true conclusions, not in making conclusions true.

Originally posted by zombies
Is emperical or the physical all there is to this, are the molecules, the atoms, all there is to it.??, and if man can only build measuring instruments out of the atoms, and take emperical measurements, there is no way they can ever measure the spiritual, which does not consist of atoms, so that's why you don't have no readings for the spiritual, you fool ...[text shortened]... knows that they are real, and science has no emperical proof of it.

Anyways enjoy your day.

A refreshing and candid post. Duly rec'd. 🙂

Originally posted by bbarr
No, deduction doesn't carry with it the assumption that the premises are true. Deduction is a form of reasoning that insures that if the premises are true, the conclusion will be true also. In other words, deduction is the form of reasoning that is necessarily truth-preserving. This is why we distinguish between valid arguments and sound arguments. Sound ...[text shortened]... t is irrelevant. Arguments aim at arriving at true conclusions, not in making conclusions true.

A true deductive conclusion carries with it the assumption that the premises are true. You are correct that there can be deduction with faulty premesis. My apologies for not dotting my 'i' there. And you missed my point that the truth of premises cannot be established with induction and deduction alone. That is what I meant when I said that they cannot yield truth by themselves. The premises must be established as true through other means (any ideas on that?).

Originally posted by zombies
And regardless how you look at it, these worlds have a beginning, that is non-physical, and that beginning is told in one book and one book only. For me that's enough I kinda "blindly" believe what it says anyway, for I am a spirit, I live in a body, and I have a soul, so are you my dearest friend.

Quite a few assumptions packed into this paragraph. Why must there have been a beginning to the universe? Modern cosmology doesn't dictate that, but merely that the evolution of the universe can be traced back to some point singularity. Modern cosmology has absolutely nothing to say about where that singularity came from, if it came from anything at all. Further, even if the world did have an origin in something non-physical (whatever that means, exactly), why doesn't your intuition about causation in the physical domain apply equally to the non-physical domain? As Chomsky once put it: "We begin to call things physical once we understand them." Finally, what's up with the "one book and one book only" comment? If this is just a statement of faith on your part, fine. If you expect us to take such a claim seriously, then provide your evidence.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This is probably what you meant to say:

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it."
- G.K. Chesterton

To the extent that the method has a "truth-producing ability", I didn't put a dent in it. I described it and left it as I found it.

And you described it well as not being 'god'.

Originally posted by yousers
A true deductive conclusion carries with it the assumption that the premises are true. You are correct that there can be deduction with faulty premesis. My apologies for not dotting my 'i' there. And you missed my point that the truth of premises cannot be established with induction and deduction alone. That is what I meant when I said that they cannot ...[text shortened]... themselves. The premises must be established as true through other means (any ideas on that?).

Just so we are clear on this point, a true deductive conclusion doesn't entail anything (or assume anything, for that matter), about the truth of the premises. Consider:

1. The moon is made of green cheese.
2. If the moon is made of green cheese, then it 2+2=4.
3. Hence, 2+2=4

See, the conclusion of this deductively valid argument is true, yet is derived from the conjunction of one false premise (premise 1), and one true premise (premise 2). So, true conclusions may de validly deduced from false premises.

Yes, I have some ideas about those pesky premises; my dissertation concerns them (at least those at issue in perceptual inference and belief).

Originally posted by bbarr
Just so we are clear on this point, a true deductive conclusion doesn't entail anything (or assume anything, for that matter), about the truth of the premises. Consider:

1. The moon is made of green cheese.
2. If the moon is made of green cheese, then it 2+2=4.
3. Hence, 2+2=4

See, the conclusion of this deductively valid argument is true, yet is ...[text shortened]... ses; my dissertation concerns them (at least those at issue in perceptual inference and belief).

You are right; my statement was incorrect. The conclusion of an argument similar to the one you have given obviously does not recieve its truth value from the given deductive argument. Apparently, we must know that it is true by other means besides the deductive argument.
Do you agree with my statement that strictly inductive and deductive reason cannot reveal necessary truth?
Also, if you care to share those ideas, I am interested.

Originally posted by bbarr

Yes, I have some ideas about those pesky premises; my dissertation concerns them (at least those at issue in perceptual inference and belief).

I am also interested in these ideas. I will offer to put my proofreading skills to use in exchange for the privilege of being among the first to read them if you could use another pair of eyes to look over your dissertation.

Originally posted by yousers
You are right; my statement was incorrect. The conclusion of an argument similar to the one you have given obviously does not recieve its truth value from the given deductive argument.

Trivial Challenge: Construct a valid argument with all false premises and a true conclusion.

(Hint: the name of the exercise suggests the form of one class of solutions.)

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Trivial Challenge: Construct a valid argument with all false premises and a true conclusion.

(Hint: the name of the exercise suggests the form of one class of solutions.)

1) (P & -P)
2) Hence, (P v ~P)

O.K., I'll write a little something on perception and epistemology, but not tonight.

Originally posted by yousers
You are right; my statement was incorrect. The conclusion of an argument similar to the one you have given obviously does not recieve its truth value from the given deductive argument. Apparently, we must know that it is true by other means besides the deductive argument.
Do you agree with my statement that strictly inductive and deductive reason cannot reveal necessary truth?
Also, if you care to share those ideas, I am interested.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "reveal". There can be good inductive evidence for necessary truths (each time I've added one thing to another, I've been left with two things). Deduction can certainly reveal necessary truths. In fact, it is the best way to go about revealing necessary truths.

Originally posted by Halitose
Nobody has been able to prove the existance of the supernatural through observable empirical science. Science is all there is and ever wil be. Science is god.

So, there!

😛

This would imply that Science has no limitations.

Originally posted by Halitose
Nobody has been able to prove the existance of the supernatural through observable empirical science. Science is all there is and ever wil be. Science is god.

So, there!

😛

Not everything needs to be proven by science.

God is science. 😛

Originally posted by Nicolaas
God is science. 😛

........oh boy. 😞