You were NOT using the scientific method, to which I provided a very detailed explanation. You were instead appealing to logic – faulty logic, for reasons which I discussed in greate detail. Logic is a valuable tool, but it’s not science.
Good. End of case.
Of course I should note that you, JThunder, have not said anything about what other ways there may be to “discern the truth.” If not the scientific method, then what? Is there any method that has been as successful?
On the contrary, logic does not exist without the fundamental principles that underlie science.
No. “Right” and “wrong” are nothing but words. They have no counterparts in reality. No-one can ever point to something and say with justification “this is right” or “this is wrong”. Note that I’m using them as “morally right” and “morally wrong” since that was the context we first used them in. Obviously, it’s possible for a solution to a mathematical problem to be right or wrong, but that’s not the sense we’re using the words in here.
Now, JThunder: certainly you’ve heard about the impossibility of proving a negative? And certainly you realize that’s what you’re asking me to do?
The claim I’m making is this: No-one can name a nonscientific method that gets results, facts, truth or whatever you want to call it. Until someone does, I’ll feel justified in saying one doesn’t exist, same way I feel justified in saying Santa doesn’t exist.
Oh, and one final thing, JThunder: I responded to those objections pre-emptively. Saying you didn’t make them now, when I’ve already made them for you, isn’t exactly impressive.
Not true. I already talked about intuition, which the Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes as “immediate knowledge of the truth of a proposition, where ‘immediate’ means ‘not preceded by inference.’” (This differentiates it from mere gut feelings, “feminine intuition” and the like.)
I also talked about the fundamental laws of logic, on which the scientific method assumes to be true. In fact, I pointed out that many of your own defenses appealed to these self-same laws of logic (rather fallaciously, I might add). No sane person would contest these laws, even though they cannot be proven scientifically.
Already answered. Now give it a rest.
Yes, since you’re the one who made that bold claim. If you can’t support it, you shouldn’t have made it. If you can’t know that there are no other paths to the truth, then you shouldn’t insist that science is the only way. To do so is to go beyond the evidence at hand.
Moreover, it’s simply false to say that “You can’t prove a negative.” It is possible; in fact, mathematicians do it all the time (e.g. using the technique of reductio ad absurdum). Moreover, it’s a self-refuting statement, as it just another way of saying, “There are ABSOLUTELY NO ways to prove a negative.”
Is that the truth? If so, then you have just used a non-scientific method to affirm this alleged truth!
I see. So it’s wrong for someone to point to something and say “This is right”?
Is that right? So it’s wrong for someone to point to something and proclaim"This is right"?
BTW, don’t think I haven’t noticed that this response of yours did not use the scientific method, either.
quoting godzillatemple:
No, atheists do not necessarily take things by faith (most don’t, actually). See my reply on the faith thread that you have referenced.
** Very well. Now, demonstrate that “intuition” exists.
Not that people can reach conclusions without being consciously aware of the chain of inference or deduction they used to reach the conclusions. We admit that. Demonstrate that people can immediately (and accurately – a Magic 8-Ball can reach an immediately conclusion) know the truth of a proposition without using logic.
Show us one example where it can be shown that the concept you’ve defined has a referent in reality.
I understand your context, I think. What I disagree with is that the concept of, say, “alive” is any different. Fundamentally, I would contend, we have created both the concepts “tree” and “murder.” In the former case, there was a physical object to which we attached the meaning, and in the latter there wasn’t an object but an action. I’ll go ahead and grant that because it’s blindingly obvious. But both are just examples of humans categorizing things in order to make sense of the world. That we all agree on certain things (like what constitutes a tree) and don’t all agree on others (like what constitutes a moral wrong) is immaterial; what matters is that in both cases we’ve created the concepts.
TVAA, I find the statement “logic does not exist without the fundamental principles that underlie science” to be rather interesting. Could you elaborate on that? I’m not sure I agree with you or not, but I’d certainly like to understand that better.
But by the same argument, you could equally well say “the theory that the scientific method is the only means to knowing truth will remain valid until there is evidence to the contrary.” Our evidence to the contrary right now is evidence that method X does not lead to the truth; it is not evidence that no method leads to the truth, however.
That’s an interesting definition. Is the difference between intuition and gut feeling that the intuited statement of the truth or falsity of a proposition is correct? Or is it that the person with the intuition believes it to be correct?
In common usage, “my intuition tells me P” does not guarantee that P is true. By the definition you cite, if a person says “I intuit P,” is it a case of intuition if P is true, and not intuition if P is false?
If so, intuition is not a way of finding truth (except by definition) since the only way of determining if a statement of intuition is really intuition is by determining the truth of the statement by other means. If intuition is defined as it is commonly used, on the other hand, then there is no expectation that an intuited proposition is in fact true.
Perhaps the reference gives more detail on this. As it stands, intuition does not seem another path to the truth at all.
It’s quite simple: how do we know what the consequences of any logical principles are?
We can determine them only by observing the result of a computational system that represents them. For example, consider John Conway’s Game of Life.
(See http://hensel.lifepatterns.net/ for a particularly charming explanation and Applet demonstration.)
How can we know what any particular pattern will do over computational time? This is a purely mathematical question, but the only way to solve it is to examine the results of a simulation. It doesn’t matter if the simulation is performed by a computer or by modules of the human brain.
How do we know that if A=B, and B=C, then A=C? We can only know this by applying the laws defined in the concept of “equality” to the first two statements. How can we know that our conclusion isn’t somehow wrong, that the human brain mistakenly reaches that conclusion when it isn’t “really” valid?
Consider: when children learn the algorithms for such tasks as long division, they frequently learn them incorrectly. When they try to problems, they inevitably get the wrong answer. But when they check their work, they always conclude that they’re right, because “rightness” to them means following the rules they’ve internalized. They have no way to evaluate what they did other than compare it to the algorithm they learned – and they have no way of evaluating the algorithm itself.
Can you explain why it’s important to distinguish between logic and the scientific method? To me, the scientific method is nothing more than the application of logic to the problem of understanding the nature of the universe.
In which case, you’re obviously misinformed.
I already posted a link to an article which explains, in great detail, what the scientific method is. In fact, I posted it several times. You obviously never bothered to read the darned thing.
The scientific method is more than just the application of logic. It involves a very specific sequence of steps, which is why it’s referred to as a method. This should come as no surprise, since it is routinely taught at the elementary school level.
If you still think that it is nothing more than applying logic, then I can’t help but wonder what you learned in the fifth grade.
No I haven’t. I observed the world, saw no nonscientific method able to get results, even performed the forty-thousand-year experiment that didn’t show a single result from any nonscientific method and concluded that there probably aren’t any. If that is a nonscientific conclusion, then “Invisible Pink Unicorns aren’t building a copy of the Statue of Liberty in my colon right now” is also a nonscientific conclusion.
Let me spell it out, JThunder: If thorough observation produces no instances of B, I’m fully justified in saying B doesn’t exist.
Besides, we can’t even think of a method to refute here. If you’re claiming that a nonscientific method exists that is able to get results/facts, name it. If you’re not, what are we arguing about?
No, provided they’re speaking about their opinions. It is incorrect to point to, to use your example, the torture of homosexuals and say “this is morally wrong and that’s a fact”. It’s not a fact, it’s an opinion. It’s an opinion I happen to agree with, but that’s beside the point. It’s still just an opinion. If you disagree, tell me why instead of mindlessly yelling “that’s not scientific!”.
No we didn’t. Trees existed prior to humans, would keep existing if all humans died, and would have existed if humans had never come to be. We saw a thing and called it a tree, that’s it. Even if we had created trees it would be the same; a tree is a physical object that indisputably exists unless your name is Descartes, just like a car or a computer.
In the case of “right” and “wrong” we both created the concepts and gave them names. “Right” and “wrong” don’t exist outside our minds. The question of agreement is irrelevant.
I did read the darned thing, not that it said anything I didn’t know. And I still stand by my statement that the scientific method is a way by which logic is used to understand the nature of the universe. If you disagree, what do you suggest is a way to gain understanding about this universe using logic but without using the scientific method?
I’m against organized religion. I think people need to stop paying RETAIL to have a connection with their chosen Higher Being. And they need to stop making monuments to themselves too. Have you seen some of the Churches lately? They’re architecturally fascinating! Since when does God require worship in an architecturally stunning building?
Couldn’t that money be better spent helping the needy? The money they tithe could go for all sorts of things – helping out the poor hungry children, upgrading the school systems that need it… I pass by the Executive Offices of a well-known religion almost every day. That costs money to lease a building and pay people to run the church.
Religion is BIG BUSINESS. Someone’s making good money from it. And it’s not God.
And if all of these people were truly ‘Christians’ as they claim, there would be no need for orphanages – because they’d find a way to adopt all of the children who are currently being warehoused around the country. Wouldn’t that further their cause? Creating more “Christians” by actually walking their talk?
I’m more of a factory-direct kind of gal. I go right to the source when I need a chit-chat.
The man in the ugly prom dress at the front of the church is no more closer to God than I am. His congregants are brainwashed to believe he is though.
I just wonder how Catholics feel knowing their tithing has gone to keep predatory child molesters in their realm. They’ve known it for 20 years… and only recently has anything been done. Pitiful. That’s what religion will do to you – will stop you from making a reasonable choice to CALL THE COPS if your child is being molested.
Yikes.
Err… for the same reason that it’s important to distinguish between oak and tree; they’re not the same? Logic is used in the scientific method, but not all which is one need be the other.
Two caveats, though I don’t disagree with the general principle[ol][li]Your thorough observation must be capable of seeing the hypothesized B to begin with.[/li][li]What you’re fully justified in saying is that thorough investigation has produced no instances of B, and that the probability, therefore, is that B doesn’t exist. Since it is always possible that despite your “thorough” investigation, you’ve overlooked something, you’re not justified in saying that B definitely doesn’t exist. You yourself made the earlier statement that one couldn’t prove a negative; here you seem to have said that you’re fully justified in believing that you have proved a negative.[/li][/ol]
I’ll presume to speak for JThunder, if I may: we’re arguing about whether science is the only way to get knowledge.
I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing here, somehow. Obviously, any blithering idiot, even me, understands that trees are objects. The issue is this: every tree is different. What we did is to see an awful lot of objects that seemed to have certain things in common and classified them under the broader concept “tree.” We did not create the physical huge oak tree outside my office; we did create the notion that it’s rather like the fir that’s trying valiantly to grow past its present miniscule height back home. The objects existed; the concept “tree” which unifies those various objects is a human construction.
“Right” and “wrong” are not entirely dissimilar; in the case of “tree” we’re categorizing physical objects and in the case of “right” and “wrong” we’re categorizing concepts, but both “tree” and “wrong” are classifications we’ve invented to help us deal with the world around us.
I think in general we’re running into a vocabulary problem, where different people are using the same words to mean different things, and then arguing about the consequences of their definitions. I’m not sure this is particularly helpful…
TVAA, I haven’t forgotten you, but I’m pondering at the moment.
g8rguy presumed to speak on my behalf, and he did an excellent job. Very nicely done, sir.