Tom Sawyer

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this guy's argument and if so would someone who better understands the definitions of logic correct me, but it sounds to me that he's saying that because the scientific method uses inductive logic, it doesn't meet the definition of deductive logic and is therefore illogical.

This strikes me as less of someone who's arguing a valid position as it does someone who's simply using words wrong. Granted, the definition of inductive logic doesn't meet the definition of deductive logic, but that's why there's two different terms for them, even though they both have the word logic in them.

Now is it just me, or is this guy's entire argument based upon his confusing the two terms?

JusticeMachine

Prof, what site are you argueing on?

Shadowy Man

This guy apparently doesn't understand science at all. This is completely backwards.

echidna

Yup, you appear to have truly entered the humourous stag of the debate. Now he's saying that when he steps off the side of a bridge, the only reason you accelerate towards the ground at 9.8 m/s2 is because scientists say you do. And this of course explains how the Modern Scientific Age was heralded in when people actually began falling off bridges instead of floating.

IoftheBholder

Basically, yes. This is how I see the argument. He seems to twist the language to say, "Inductive reasoning does not provide logical proof; therefore, inductive reasoning cannot provide proof." Logic which relies on deductive reasoning is only one way to proof -- there are others.

Given the goal of the argument to deconstruct the basis of science rather than construct any reasonable defense of religion, I would guess his confusion of the terms is quite deliberate.

yguy

I wonder how many people who think me myopic for having argued against acausality with regard to "random motion" agree with this.

Prof

Thanks for the very helpful replies everyone. I've learned a lot from the forum members (as a lurker and now in this thread) and I hope to join the discussions soon.

FYI, with your help I've torn apart his argument piece by piece. Yet my opponent has simply restated the same position, saying:

"All I am trying to say is that Empiricism's first principle is that truth can only be found through the senses alone. However, this first principle refutes itself since it cannot itself be proven through sense data alone.
Not only does Empiricism's position necessitate an improvable presupposition (something all P. Systems do) but it is also false by its own means of determining falsity. And because it is a self refuting statement it is also illogical."

He also says: "Hume, himself an empiricist, was consistent in his thinking. He realized that the principle of cause and effect, the existence of external bodies, and the reality of internal selves could not be proven through sense data alone. Therefore, Hume admitted that his empiricism was a total failure."

Ugh.

Prof.

leyline

Prof

"And because it is a self refuting statement it is also illogical."

why not concede the point in that context? Belief in christianity isn't based upon a logically consistent recursive self evident axiom either. The bible isn't self evidently the great book just by the fact that it is a book. There are lots to choose from. So in what sense is it a criticism of empiricism that its first principle is not empirically confirmable, any more than the bible is not self evidently divine through the act of reading? Not all books claim that the bible is divine, so in what sense is faith in the bible found through reading it, any more than faith in empricism is found through the empirical method?

It all depends upon whether the two of you are trying to hack each other to pieces..... or understand each other and find common ground.

Prof

leyline,

The problem is I can see he's been setting what he believes is a trap. Basically, he's setting up a battle between Deduction (the logic that he relies on for his philosophical system) and Induction, which he is at pains to ascribe (mostly correctly) to Science.

He admits his system starts with an improvable presupposition. But he clearly feels that once he can get me to admit that my system rests upon improvable presuppositions too, then he can point out that his system, built as it is on Deduction, is in the stronger logical position.

Wait, as I type this he's actually just posted his philosophical system. Since I've kept people in this thread abreast of the debate, I'll paste it here. But seeing as it's philosophy related, I think I will also take it to the Philosophy section to see how it fares. Here's what my Biblical Literalist opponent just wrote:

QUOTE:

"My system goes beyond that though and *is* not only equal but better than the empiricist's.

See what you think abouit my Philosophical System.

Presupposition: “The Bible alone is the Word of God”

You will immediately notice three things about my presupposition.

Firstly it is improvable just as every other presupposition is.

Secondly it is *not* false by its own method of determining falsity for the Bible itself declares that it is inspired and inerrant. Now, I want you to see that once you presuppose the Bible the method of determining what is true is to ask does the Bible say it is true either by stating it expressly or by it being deduced using formally valid deduction. This is not the same thing as saying the Bible is true because it says it’s true. That would be circular reasoning and would therefore be invalid. We are not here trying to prove that the Bible is true, we have already presupposed this, we are only here asking what does the Bible say about itself.

And thirdly it is not formally invalid and therefore *not* illogical. Because the statement “The Bible alone is the Word of God” does not violate any laws of logic it is not invalid. In order to be illogical the statement must be either self refuting (like Empiricism’s presupposition is) or nonsense (for instance “The brown sound of one my licking boom!”) And as you can plainly see that since it breaks no laws of Logic the worst one could say is that it is false but never illogical.

So as you can see my Philosophical System is only improvable, but *not* false or illogical as we have seen Empiricism to be.

Furthermore my system has many other desirable and useful features that Empiricism *cannot* have:

A Working Epistemology (A theory of Knowing): All things knowable are either expressly set down in the Bible, or by necessary consequence can be *deduced* from the Bible.

Ontology (A theory of Being): All being is derived from the God of the Bible alone.

Sufficient grounds for Logic: The Bible calls Jesus the Logos, which is the Greek word from which we get the English word Logic.

Sufficient grounds for Absolute Morals: Commands abound!

And the most useful; sufficient grounds for the basic reliability of the senses (and so grounds for the Scientific Method): When Thomas doubts he is told by Jesus to touch and feel and to look and see His wounds. Therefore Jesus was demonstrating the basic reliability of the senses.

In summary my Philosophical System, Christianity, is *not* false, *not* illogical nor is it useless as we have seen Empiricism to be. It is improvable but that is a trait that it shares with every Philosophical System. "

END QUOTE

ZouPrime

1) Empiricism never claimed to be a logical system (having specific axioms)
2) Even if his system was logical, it gives us absolutely NO information about its truth! And that's the question he should be asking himself. It's trivial to come with perfectly logical but blatantly false system. For example:

a) Bob is a cat
b) All cats can fly.
c) Therefore, Bob can fly.

This is perflectly logical, but who cares if it is false??

I don't know for you, but this one gives me the creeps.

Maybe it is not illogical (but again, this is very debatable), but it has absolutely NOTHING to do about it being true or false. As for Empiricism being "useless", this is just lame. Again, the author simply does not understand the difference between logic and rationality.