Basil

You got a lot of good points from Iofthebeholder. Let me give you my brief take on this one:

Formal completeness is not equal to validity, nor is formal incompleteness equal to fallacious reasoning.

A formally correct argument can still be invalid, if one of the premises is invalid.

If an argument is formally incomplete, its conclusion may still be highly plausible. Inductive logic can only give us probabilities and likelihood, not certainty.

We can say:
for the past 4.5 billion *365 days, the earth has rotated around its axis.
Then tomorrow the earth will rotate around its axis.

The conclusion is not certain, but very highly plausible. Establishing plausibility by rigorous inductive methods is the very essence of science.

Hope this helps.

Basil

echidna

Pretty true this. In a similar vein, the other safe ground they retreat to is Solipsism.

Bob K

One of the forms of logical argument is the If P, Then Q inductive sequence:

If (P) this rock hits that window (with sufficient force), Then (Q) that window breaks.

Premise: If (P) this rock hits that window (with this force), Then (Q) that window breaks.
Premise: (P) This rock hits that window (with sufficient force).
Conclusion: (Q) That window breaks.

The If P, Then Q logical argument can be paraphrased as Condition (P) <-> Consequence (Q).

The If P, Then Q logical argument can also be viewed as a description of causality, of causes causing effects, of people/things/events who/which are causes cause/create people/things/events who/which are effects, in which Condition: P = Cause causes Consequence: Q = Effect.

Logical arguments can have two characteristics:

1. Validity/invalidity re: the rules of logic.
2. Veracity re: truth.

#2 Veracity re: truth requires verifiability/falsifiability/verification by proof = physical evidence.

Verifiability/falsifiability involves determining whether or not a phenomenon for which the If P, Then Q/Condition <-> Consequence/Causality is observable/measurable.

If the P/Q-Condition/Consequence-Causality is observable, then it is verifiable/falsifiable; if not, then not.

Verification/falsification of reality can only be accomplished through the use of physical evidence as proof, as support.

Physical evidence consists of people/things/events comprised of matter/energy perceptible by the perceptual senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste augmentable by machines such as telescopes/microscopes/audio amplifiers/etc. directly or indirectly by observable effects upon observable people/things/events.

When the conditions of verifiability/falsifiability/verification are met, because physical evidence has been observed and the premises verified, then the If P, Then Q inductive sequence/causal sequence is descriptive of the real world, of truth.

The If P, Then Q logical argument veracity is also based upon sufficient sampling. Enough cases of similar rocks hitting similar windows with similar sufficient force to cause the similar windows to break have to be observed for the hypothesis If similar rocks hit similar windows with similar force, then those similar windows will break to be developed and confirmed. One case is generally not a sufficient sample; 10,000 cases may be more than enough for a sufficient example.

The veracity principle is derived from physics, which is the study of the forces that change inertial states, and the fundamental principle of physics that an inertial state will continue until a force causes a change of the inertial state, with the result, which is a statement of causality, forces are the causes which cause the effects of changes of inertial states.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz: The Fundamental Law of Physics

Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Four Lectures on Relativity and Space.
Dover Publications, Inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014 1967
pp. 49–50.

The fundamental law of physics is the law of inertia. "A body keeps the same state as long as there is no cause to change its state." That is, it remains at rest or continues the same kind of motion—that is, motion with the same velocity in the same direction—until some cause changes it, and such cause we call a 'force.' " [Quotes in the original, but not attributed to anyone.]

This is really not merely a law of physics, but it is the fundamental law of logic. It is the law of cause and effect: "Any effect must have a cause, and without cause there can be no effect." This is axiomatic and is the fundamental conception of all knowledge, because all knowledge consists in finding the cause of some effect or the effect of some cause, and therefore must presuppose that every effect has some cause, and inversely. [Quotes in the original but not attributed to anyone.]

Thus, when an inductive hypothesis is verifiable/falsifiable/verified, as well as valid, then the induction logic is a description of reality, of causality, and of predictability, the hypothesis is confirmed (until falsified), and the hypothesis becomes a scientific principle/fact.

Thus, the when an If P, Then Q inductive logical argument is verifiable/falsifiable/verified by physical evidence, by observable people/things/events comprised of matter/energy, then it--the If P, Then Q logical argument--describes reality and cannot be claimed to be an illusion.

Here is a challenge open to all who claim all inductive reasoning is illusion:

The If P, Then Q logical argument to be tested:

If (P) philosophers/Xn fundamentalists run headfirst through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall of Washington University of St. Louis, Then each and every time they do so they will suffer serious physical trauma.

Experimental Conditions: Philosophers/Xn Fundies who conclude that inductive hypotheses can only be illusions are to prove their case by running headfirst through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall.

Observation of serious physical trauma to the heads of such philosophers/Xn Fundies who accept this challenge and fulfill the experimental conditions shall be physical evidence confirming the If P, Then Q inductive hypothesis.

Summary: When an If P, Then Q inductive logical argument has verifiable/falsifiable/verified premises, premises verified by observable people/things/events who/which fulfill the requirements for physical evidence, then the argument is both valid (it follows the laws of logic) and veracious (it describes reality; its conclusion is true).

One-More-Time: When (P) the premises and conclusion of a logical argument (1) follow the rules of logic and (2) are verified by observable physical evidence, then (Q) the logical argument is both (1) valid and (2) true.

When (P) a logical argument is both (1) valid and (2) its premises are verified, then (Q) it describes reality and therefore cannot be an illusion.

Claudia

This discussion seems related to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (at leas marginally).

Bob K

Claudia:

One of the facts concerning axioms is that they are observations/intuitions of real and imagined relationships/causalities which have never been observed to be other than as observed/intuited and described. I.e. the proof that an axiom is relevant to the real-world and to intuition is the lack of disconfirmation, the lack of real people/things/events who/which are exceptions to the people/things/events claimed in the axiom.

Thus, when we observe/intuit an axiom, we are doing so by actual/intuited observation, and until we find real/intuited people/things/events who/which disconfirm that axiom, it remains in force.

Thus, axioms are actually developed through the use of the inductive reasoning process.

Over a huge sample of specific cases the inductive generality--the hypothesis--is developed and tested and confirmed/disconfirmed, and when confirmed, then the hypothesis is accepted as a fact, as an axiom, until further observation reveals disconfirmation.

If, in the laws of logic, the axiom is when A = B, and B = C, then A = C, then, no exceptions appearing, A = C when A = B and B = C.

Thus, an axiom shows up as an If P, Then Q form of logical argument.

IF (P) A = B and B = C, Then (Q) A = C.

Premise: If (P) A = B and B = C, Then (Q) A = C.
Premise: (P) A = B and B = C.
Conclusion: (Q) A = C.

For a real-world example, of the IF (P) A = B and B = C, Then A = C logical argument concerning axioms, if identical clocks are built in which each clock is precisely and without exception identical to each and every other clocks, all clocks are alike, and each is the same as any other.

If Clock A = Clock B and Clock B = Clock C, then Clock A = Clock B.

NOTE: If you are arguing that the space coordinates of each clock will be different--otherwise they would all occupy the same space coordinates, and that for all clocks to be identical they would have to be identical in all ways/dimensions/measurements INCLUDING space coordinates then you are missing the point that there are specific other characteristics of clocks such as rates of functioning that could be precisely identical and which would serve as the characteristics/standards by which identity can be established, and, thus, space coordinates are not necessarily a standard by which identity is seriously determinable.

Hence, by this Theory of Axioms, axioms describing observable and intuited real-world people/things/events are valid when verified by sample cases which show no observations/intuitions which are disconfirmations of the content of the axioms.

Prof

People, Thanks for the wonderful insights. It's been helpful for clarifying some issues for me. Unfortunately this guy ain't budging and won't continue the debate until I concede his points, which are as follows (here are parts of his latest post):

QUOTE:

" am attacking Empiricism. I am *not* attacking Science!

I want you to see that not only does your 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. Your position is improvable, false, and illogical. It is your position, Empiricism, that I am attacking. I am *not* attacking Science!

Now as you recall your P. System states that all genuine information about the universe must be derived from sense perception.

Now since you *cannot* demonstrate through sense perception *alone* a basis for the Scientific Method you are *not* allowed to claim its use. And so again I say; I am attacking Empiricism. I am *not* attacking Science!

I want you to see that not only does your position necessitate an improvable presupposition (something all P. Systems do) but it is also false by its own means of determining falsity. Because it is a self refuting statement it is also illogical.

...The presupposition that you hold, namely; all genuine information about the universe must be derived from sense perception, is self refuting. For if it was true then unless one could sense something that thing is inherently false. The axiom that all genuine information about the universe must be derived from sense perception cannot be sensed so it is by empirical necessity false. ...

Your position is improvable, false, and illogical. Mine is simply improvable.

If perceived usefulness is the criteria for judging ones philosophical system then improvable, false, and illogical are the marks of uselessness.

I rightly judge your philosophical system as unworthy of being held. "

(END QUOTE)

So he's stuck in the realm of logic and will not produce further argument he says until I agree that empiricism is logically untenable. I'm no logician myself, (and I know he's simply throwing dirt into the water) , so I'm wondering what the folks here think of his point. I'm about to give up on this guy, but I would like to break the back of this point so we can continue.

Thanks,

Prof.

IoftheBholder

Rather, he is attacking science by attacking empiricism. The fundamental argument is as follows:

For me, Bob K has done an outstanding job showing how inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning work together. To summarize his point, axioms are not proven by deductive reasoning but by inductive reasoning. Returning to my point about the all too strict definition of proof used by your adversary, inductive reasoning makes proof on the grounds of likelihood and probability. Therefore, empiricism (and science) prove themselves with inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. This may or may not be illogical (I'll leave that to an expert like Bob K) but it is by no means improvable or false.

First, the statement is not entirely consistent (first knowledge is derived from sense perception, then it must be sensed directly). So let's give your adversary the benefit of the doubt and interpret it to read:

(A) All knowledge must be derived from sense perception.
(B) A cannot be derived from sense perception.

For me, A is knowledge that I have derived from sense perception (a la the running through Brookings Hall argument) therefore B is false. Again, I am not asserting that I can prove A with a deductive proof but rather that I am sufficiently convinced it is true.

Ask your adversary to prove B. Can he do it without empircal knowledge or inductive reasoning?

ex-xian

Well, you could point out to him that formal logic itself cannot be both complete and consistent, so he isn't on as a solid of a foundation as he would like to think he is.

Basically, he misunderstands the scientific process. Science isn't in the business of proving anything...it's in the business of confirming or falsifying theories.

A good scientific theory will make predictions that can be tested. If the theory passes a test, it is confirmed; the better the instruments, the more the error bar can be lowered, but nothing is ever certain. If the theory fails the test, then it's gone. That's why we can say that scientific theories are strongly falsifiable, but only weakly confirmable.

Try to redirect the argument by asking him to clarify his terms. What are the precise definitions of empiricism and of science that he is using.

The statement that all genuine info about the universe is from perception isn't an empirical claim--it's not a claim obtained from observation, so it's not a statement about the information in the universe. It's an epistimological claim, it's a claim based on reason about the nature of a certain type of knowledge, so it's not self refuting.

Bob K

Prof:

My observation is that when fundies are losing arguments because of their illogic vis á vis an atheist’s/agnostic’s logic they desperately deny/evade/obfuscate/attack.

One of the fundamental problems of philosophy is developing concepts and principles which accurately describe how humans obtain and verify knowledge, facts.

When someone denies empiricism to be useful for obtaining genuine/useful information he is obligated to specify precisely his logic which prompts him to deny empiricism as a means of obtaining knowledge and to replace empiricism with another means of obtaining knowledge.

A person’s philosophy is his set of concepts and principles which he has developed through his experiences in which he experimented with environmental choices for realizing/achieving his desires and avoiding his fears.

The physical reality consists of people/things/events (1) who/which are comprised of matter/energy and (2) who/which are perceivable by the five senses of perception--sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste--either (A) directly, possibly through the use of machines such as telescopes/microscopes/amplifiers/etc. which augment the senses, or (B) indirectly through the observable/perceivable effects they cause upon observable/perceivable people/things/events.

A concept is a mental representation/idea of a person, or a thing, an object which retains its identity over a longer period of time than relevant events.

Examples: A woman Jane, a ball, a man named Dick.

A principle is a mental representation/idea of an event, a relationship between/among things.

Example: Jane throws the ball to Dick, and Dick catches the ball.

A principle is a description of causality.

Causality is the sequence in which people/things/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy (m/e) cause people/things/events who/which are also comprised of m/e and who/which are the effects of the preceding causes.

As a description of causality, a principle is an explanation, an explanation of who/what caused an effect, an explanation of why an effect occurred.

Example: Jane is a cause who causes an effect in which a ball travels through the air to Dick.

A concept is accurate and therefore true if/when it describes real/observable/perceptible people/things/events; a concept is inaccurate and therefore false if/when it does not describe real/observable/perceptible people/things/events.

A principle is accurate and therefore true if/when it describes real/observable/perceptible relationships between/among real/observable/perceptible people/things/events; a principle is inaccurate and therefore false if it does not describe relationships between/among real/observable/perceptible people/things/events.

The fundamental questions herein include: (A) How do you we discover knowledge and (B) how do we determine that what we think we know is accurate?

There are four basic methods for developing concepts/principles:

1. The scientific method/empiricism: Concepts/principles confirmed by physical evidence.
2. Authority: concepts/principles claimed by Priests, Holy Books, etc., but not confirmed by physical evidence.
3. Faith: Concepts/Principles not confirmed by physical evidence.
4. Intuition: Concepts/principles developed through deductive or inductive reasoning but which are not confirmed by physical evidence.

Thus, there is only one method of obtaining genuine information/knowledge, of developing accurate concepts/principles confirmed by physical evidence, and that one-and-only acceptable/useful/logical method is the scientific method/empiricism.

Fundie:Has the fundie provided herein his logic for rejecting empiricism?

And if he has, has he used any form of empiricism--observation using the perceptual senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste and inductive logic--to deny empiricism? If so, then he has committed hypocrisy.

Fundie:We CAN demonstrate through sense perception a basis for the Scientific Method.

When inductive reasoning premises are based upon physical evidence which consists of people/things/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy and who/which can be perceived through the perceptual senses then the premises are verifiable/falsifiable, and when verified, provide data--observable data--for the development of an hypothesis, which is a description of causality, an explanation of why effects are observed, and a prediction of what effects will be observed when specific causes are present, which can be confirmed/denied through additional observation/perception.

The connections between inductive reasoning and knowledge are the requirements (1) that the inductive hypothesis be based upon observable people/things/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy and who/which are therefore observable data and (2) that the confirmation/denial of the inductive hypothesis be based upon observable people/things/events who/which serve as additional data.

Speculations/intuitions--non-observations, ideas not based upon observations--are therefore not allowed to be used as data for the development of an inductive hypothesis and are therefore not allowed to be used as data which confirm/deny an inductive hypothesis.

Fundie:The fundie has claimed but cannot prove that empiricism necessitates an unprovable presupposition--that all knowledge is based upon perception, that all genuine information about reality comes from the perceptual senses.

He is overlooking another fact, that along with the perceptual senses genuine information is derived from another sense--common sense, which is a process of requiring an examination of the perceptual processes to ensure that the information thereby gained is consistent with similar information previously gained and that, therefore, the senses are not providing an illusion.

When you see a body of water glistening in the sunlight, it has a specific appearance which could be the same as a mirage--a perceptual illusion--caused by heat glistening upon desert sand. To confirm/deny the hypothesis that the observation is that of water you make note of the position of the water and walk towards it, and if it continually moves ahead, and passes the position you have noted, then the observation is that of an illusion and not of real water.

[NOTE: If the desert sand offers no obvious landmarks to use for marking the position of the ‘water,’ then you can drop an article of clothing, back up using your shadow to ensure that you are backing up in a straight line, and see if the ‘water’ moves over/towards the article of clothing.]

If you should see a magician make an onstage elephant disappear, then you can use your senses to walk backstage and see/hear/touch/smell/etc. the elephant, or examine the apparatus to determine how the magician created the illusion, or you can ask the magician to explain the illusion to you, or you can capture him and torture him until he admits that he created the illusion and then force him to explain to you how he did it.

Thus, all along, you can use your common sense derived from previous experience--of, for example, the previous experience/observation that large animals such as elephants do not routinely disappear without some causal explanation--to determine/verify that what you initially perceived was a fact--was a bit of genuine information.

The hallmark of the scientific method is the requirement that data be obtained through the senses and not from speculations, not from authorities who cannot verify their premises and thus cannot provide valid logical arguments--logical arguments based upon verifiable/falsifiable/verified premises which lead to conclusions which are valid and true if the premises are verified, not from faith--belief in that which has not been proven to be real/accurate, and not from intuitions which are not based upon real-world observations/perceptions.

Ask your fundie if he would take up the Challenge I have presented in a previous Post: That he prove that empiricism is useless by denying that sense perceptions could occur if he were to run headfirst through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall in the Quadrangle of Washington University of St. Louis by inviting him--challenging him--to prove his hypothesis by the physical evidence (oops!!!--empiricism, again!!!) his head could provide by his actually running headfirst through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall.

Ask your fundie if he would risk flying in an airplane built from speculations/faith/intuition instead of being built from knowledge gained through the perceptual senses and common sense experiences in the history of man’s adventures with flight.

He will desperately deny/evade/obfuscate/attack, but the fact is that to answer these questions logically he would have to admit that the perceptual senses are a valid means of obtaining genuine information about real-world people/things/events and that, therefore, empiricism is a valid means of obtaining genuine information and that the scientific method is therefore the only valid means of obtaining genuine information compared to speculation/authorities/faith/intuition/etc.

One way in which fundies will desperately evade/obfuscate is to ask questions/make assertions concerning opinions and not people/things/events comprised of matter/energy.

One favorite topic for fundie evasion/obfuscation is morality. The question/assertion is how perceptual senses/empiricism can provide genuine knowledge re: morality.

Morality is a set of rules governing how people should interact with other people and for rewards for moral acts and punishments for immoral acts.

Those sets of rules which are moralities, which are moral standards, and which set comprises a moral code, are based upon opinions of what acts are moral/immoral, thus, there is no scientific basis for morality.

The fundies want to assert that only the gods can provide an objective set of moral standards for a moral code and thus only the gods can provide an objective basis for morality. the objectively theoretically comes from getting your ass physically/spiritually kicked when you act immorally, when you violate the moral code of the gods.

The problems herein include (1) determining if or not gods exist, and (2) if they exist, then if or not they have provided a moral code they require humans to follow, and (3) if they exist, and if they have provided a moral code they require humans to follow, then if or not they actually reward humans for following the moral code or otherwise punish humans for not following the moral code.

What would be proof of the existence of gods? Speculation? The claims of authorities know as priests? Faith? Intuition?

The only logical proof of the existence of gods would be the gods themselves, appearing in a form humans could observe and understand, and performing stunts that would prove they--the gods--have more knowledge and capabilities for using that knowledge than man collectively or individually.

Since we have not observed gods voluntarily revealing themselves in recent years, to obtain information concerning their existence we would have to capture one and torture it until in confesses it is a god and then force it to perform stunts that would prove it has more knowledge and capabilities for using that knowledge than man and that, therefore, it is a god.

Having forced a god to prove it is a god, we could then interrogate it to gain information concerning any morality it may have established and required for humans to observe/follow.

After all that, perhaps we could agree that, if gods automatically kick ass when their moralities are violated, that there is an objective basis for morality.

But we can thereby note how this information was obtained--through the objective/empirical method of using our perceptual senses to capture a god and torture it until it confesses and proves it is a god and then answers our questions concerning its morality.

Fundie:Here is where the fundies make a fundamental error in thought/logic.

The requirement of the scientific method that all data used be obtained through observation is a presupposition that cannot be replaced by a non-observation-based presupposition for the discovery of knowledge.

When someone makes a claim of scientific knowledge--knowledge developed through the scientific method, he is required to publish/provide the observations/data he used for developing his hypothesis and the additional data he used for confirming his hypothesis.

Replication is one of the requirements of the scientific method. An hypothesis is not accepted as proven true/confirmed merely because one individual claimed he obtained data which confirmed his hypothesis.

Other individuals must be able to replicate--copy/redo--the work that led to the data which led to the hypothesis and the additional data which confirmed the hypothesis.

When an hypothesis is replicated, then it is accepted as a scientific principle/explanation/description of causality/prediction until additional data disconfirms/denies it.

Example: Several years ago, two scientists in Utah claimed they had achieved cold fusion, but their claims were not replicated and therefore their claim was rejected/not accepted.

It is the public nature of the scientific method, which includes the requirement for replication, that is self-confirming vis á vis other methods which do not allow for replication and therefore public scrutiny.

The presupposition of the scientific method is therefore self-confirming, not self-refuting.

When observations provide information/data that enables an hypothesis to be formulated and additional observations provide information/data that confirm/deny the hypothesis, then the scientific method/empiricism is self-confirming--i.e. it works.

If you allow the fundie to claim without challenge then you ‘buy’ his claims and trap yourself into his illogic.

Fundie:You should now have ammo for refuting these claims.

If his ‘position’--whatever it is--is improvable, why is it not also false/illogical?

By the way, you have not provided information concerning the methods--speculation/faith/authority/intuition--by which the fundies claims he/we can get genuine information.

Fundie:Absolutely correct, but not in the way the fundie intends.

Empiricism/the scientific method is perceived useful and, therefore, by his own standards, it is provable/true/logical.

Again, if the fundie claims empiricism/the scientific method is useless, therefore /improvable/false/illogical, then demand that he provide another method of obtaining genuine information--speculation/authority/faith/intuition--he thinks is more useful and then demand that he prove--by observations!!!-- that his method is more useful than empiricism/the scientific method.

FundieNo, there is no other philosophical system which deals with genuine information/knowledge of people/things/events comprised of matter/energy which is worthy of being held.

Undercurrent

Bullshit. Empiricism is perfectly capable of demostrating its own truth using its own means of determining falsity.

One can, for example, observe that societies that make use of epiricism as a means of knoledge gathering are more successful than those that are plagued with mysicism, &c. This is to be expected if epricism is true, therefore, using epiricism's own means of determining truth, the validity of epiricism is confirmed.