IoftheBholder

I still don't understand this point. How is this principle self refuting? Since when is proof only derived from deductive reasoning? Proof may be logical validation but may also be testing or verification to a sufficient degree of certainty.

john_v_h

Presupposition: "My Telephone Book alone is the inspired Word of God."

1. Unprovable.

2. Self-consistent: I found "This alone is the inspired Word of God" in the margin on page 332.

3. Logically valid, i.e. not self-refuting or nonsense.

4. A Working Epistemology: everyone has a phone number and they're all in there. And you can find anything else you need to know by decoding secret messages hidden in the numbers (a.k.a. "The Phone Book Code").

5. Ontology: existence is dependent on having a phone number.

6. Sufficient grounds for logic: the words "logic" and "logos" appear several times.

7. Sufficient grounds for Absolute Morals: the Book of Customer Guide instructs us on proper dialing, the importance of paying one's bill on time, giving First Aid to thy neighbor and how not to get slammed.

8. Sufficient grounds for the basic reliability of the senses: The Tablet of How To Find Telephone Numbers in the Pacific Bell White Pages admonishes us to "look" for listings and we will surely find them.

Therefore, my P. system is at least as desirable as Fundy's.

Prof

Thanks folks.

I've made many points to him regarding his confusion of logic with science, his yet-to-be-defined concept of "proof," his mischaracterizations of science etc.

The sneaky tactic he used was to try and get me to agree that we are both "presupposationalists," in that both our epistemologies (his being the bible, mine being science-based) start with improvable presuppositions. Once he gets me to agree to that, he feels that his logical system is the more logically secure, being as his is largely based on Deduction, vs mine that he ascribes to Induction (induction reaching more provisional truths).

So it seems to me much of his argument rests upon the idea that "a presupposition is a presupposition" and his can be no worse than those made by Empiricism/Science (that valid knowledge can be derived from our senses).

It was my contention that all presuppositions are far from equal, and that most presuppositions can be evaluated for their hardiness and validity in the face of experience. (I gave examples of presuppositions that have been overthrown, as well as creating one wherein I predicated my dinner plans on the presupposition that I will gain the power of unaided flight after 6:00 that night, and thus needn't factor traffic into my travel time.
I noted that I will surely discover such a presupposition to be invalid, and that I will find a more reliable, valid presupposition in relying on previous experience, by presupposing that I'll need to walk or drive to meet my dinner plans).

That "not all presuppositions are equal" (e.g. that all presuppositions will not be evaluated as equally reliable) seems obvious. Unless I'm missing something....?

Prof.

deano

heres a thought.

raw empirical data is neither logical,or illogical,it simply exists as manifestations of laws.we as humans are the ones who interpret this data,and we decide what this data means through semiology.

it is true the devices that gather the data may make mistakes,but this can be countered through re testing and such to a high level of certainty is attained.

now think on this-
if life did not exist, the universe would essentially be the same,but as the heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates,when we measure something we change it,but only in a reactive way,we never change the fundamental laws that define the action.

there exists an objective universe,our presence does not change that.

thus there is a set existence of rules and measures which exist in the universe,we can volumise and multiply these laws and come to conclusions and theories of our own.

so truths do exist,and interactions between truths creates theory.

but errors occur when we misinterpret either the laws or interactions of these laws due to lack of understanding,inability to view these laws in action or misinformation of the data etc.

as a result of all this as a whole we are trying to understand existence and mistakes will be made about our understanding of it,you cannot avoid mistakes but the existence of mistakes do not mean there are no valid truths.

if you were bouncing a ball against a wall,and it went through the wall,you would think that is illogical,it should not happen.oh but yes it can!.it isnt illogical,its called quantum tunneling,its highly unlikely no human will ever see it happen due to astronomical odds,but its possible.it happens all the time on an atomic level with particles,without it happening,your computer would need to be 10 times its current size to do the same job it does now!.

as a conclusion,errors only occur through error of observation.so his claims that empiricism is flat out flawed is right and wrong,data can both be valid and invalid according to OUR INTERPERATIONS.thus we have learn to interpret in the correct way,this is where we get something called scientific analysis!.

IoftheBholder

I think we can even take the hardiness of a presupposition even further. In science we want the starting points (hypotheses) to be falsifiable. And not necessarily just in absolute terms but also in practical terms.

So let's apply this thinking to the fundamental assertion of empiricism:
All knowledge is derived from sense data.

The presuppositions are that knowledge exists, that sense data exists, and that there is some meaningful way in which knowledge is transformed into sense data. These are fairly axiomatic to the extent that even fundies will accept these assertions. To disprove this statement, all we have to do is find the one element of knowledge that is not derived from sense data.

BTW, is Descartes' axiom derived from sense data? Can we say, "I think therefore I am" disproves the fundamental assertion of empiricism?

On the other hand, when we look at a statement like:
The Bible alone is the Word of God.

The presuppositions here are loaded with all kinds problems: God exists; God has a some kind of grand idea aka "The Word"; and the communication of that grand idea is found only in the Bible. These all suffer from an inability to be falsified. To take the first presupposition as an example, let's compare "God exists" and "God does not exist", one is clearly more falsifiable. All God has to do is appear to disprove "God does not exist". What do we have to do to disprove "God exists"?

In other words, "not all suppositions are equal" because some are easier to falsify than others. Those which are easier to falsify, yet which satisfy all the existing evidence, are the best representations of truth that we have.

RED DAVE

Prof, if you really want to get hairy on this guy, go to Non-Euclidean geometry and Godel's Proof. Basically, he's sticking you with the notion that systems of formal logic are perfect, and, therefore, superior to systems of empirical evidence, which are evolving. However, it's been known in mathematical logic for over 150 years that the perfection of formal systems is a trap and unprovable.

The development of non-Euclidean geometry demonstrated that the truth of a system of formal rigor, like Euclidean geometry, cannot be proven by itself because its presuppositions, the axioms and postulates, can themselves be negated, with the result being a system that is still formally rigorous but unrelated to empirical reality.

Godel's Proof demonstrated that, essentially, the truth of a logical system cannot be demostrated inside the logic of the system.

These two approaches will start your opponent, with this faith in Aristotelean logic, foaming at the mouth.

(If I've stated the principles of Non-Euclidean Geometry or Godel's proof incorrectly, will someone on this thread please correct me. I'm not a mathematician.)

RED DAVE

Godel's Proof

Non-Euclidean Geometry

ex-xian

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RED DAVE
[B]If I've stated the principles of Non-Euclidean Geometry or Godel's proof incoorectly, will someone on this thread please correct me. I'm not a mathematician.
[QUOTE]
Not a correction just an addition--the best way to describe what Godel proved is like this.

In any formal system powerful enough to incorporate number theory, it is possible to generate a statement equivilent to "This statement cannot be proved by the theorms of the system." If that statement is true, then the system is incomplete. If that statement is false, then the system is inconsistent. Therefore, no formal system can be both consistent and complete.