Prof

Hi folks. I've been lurking and love this forum. Sorry that my first post has to be one asking for help (introductions will come later, I'm afraid), but I need some quick help if you don't mind.

I'm an atheist, and am currently involved in an on-line discussion with a crafty biblical literalists who has spent a lot of time delving into metaphysics. As is so typical for such types, instead of trying to support his own position, he's spending all his time trying to chip away at the foundations of empiricism and the epistemological system employed by science. He'd like to bring down the presuppositions of science to equal footing with his presupposition that the bible is the inherent word of God. It's total blather of course, but being as it's on a Christian discussion board, it sounds good to his fellow believers. (It's quite a nice discussion board actually, with many of the Christian's there being quite accommodating of my views, and inquisitive).

Here's a quote from the dude regarding the logical invalidity of science:

-----

"I said that I was not going to attack the relevance and the usefulness of the Scientific Method and I will not (for only a fool would,) but I do want to address the assertion made by many of you're ilk that it is able to prove anything (much less an Absolute Moral.)
As you must know the Scientific Method is an inductive method. What you may not know is that no inductively derived truth-claim can be validly argued since inductive arguments are, one and all, formally invalid.

How it is that science can be useful though false is demonstrative by showing that you can be unaware of why it is that changing the oil in a car is good and have it still be the case that changing the oil in fact be good. Not understanding the truth of why an action works does not limit the usefulness of an action one bit. But, as useful as science is it is still, none the less, formally invalid, and so fallacious. Reasoning either exhibits formal completeness, and so validity, or is formally incomplete, and so fallacious.

A closer examination of the logic of verification should, at this point, be made. To say that if the law of gravitation is true, a free falling body will have a constant acceleration. And then say; freely falling bodies do have a constant rate of acceleration; therefore the law of gravitation is true, is a fallacy. It is the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

Its invalidity may perhaps be made more clearly if it was seen in an artificial example; if I eat two value meals from Mc. Donald's I become very full. I am very full; therefore I ate two value meals. This argument, as would be explained in even an introduction course of logic, is a fallacy. Again this is the fallacy of asserting the consequent. It is invalid whenever used. But it is precisely this fallacy that is used in every case of scientific verification. Again, if the periodic table of atomic weights is true, a new element of such and such a weight must exist; this new element has now been found; therefore the periodic table is verified. These arguments are formally invalid. But sometimes there is an adverse reaction if it is claimed that scientific verification never proves the truth of any scientific law. But I ask; is it worse to assault science, or to assassinate logic?

-------


- Now, this guy won't move forward in the debate until I "admit" my belief system is logically invalid. I've refuted him over and over, but he's mired in this one. Can anyone else give me some angles here?

Much obliged!

Prof.

ZouPrime

His argumentation is basically a huge strawman over a definition of science that absolutelly no scientists would accept anyway. In other words, he is attacking a position that nobody support anyway, so it's kind of moot.

It's entire argument is based on the misconception that science is some kind of logic tool, and thus that logic (see his part about "inference") should be use to evaluate it. But it is false: science is NOT based on logic, but on rationality.

The author is right about inductivity, and why inductivity isn't acceptable in logic. But again, this is a pure strawman, because science is not based on logic, but on rationality.

leyline

hi prof, welcome to the site

i assume that the reason that you are getting involved with that discussion is to test the validity of your own perspective, and whether and how it clashes with that of the Christian. As opposed to trying to 'disprove' or undermine their beliefs.

""I said that I was not going to attack the relevance and the usefulness of the Scientific Method and I will not (for only a fool would,) but I do want to address the assertion made by many of you're ilk that it is able to prove anything (much less an Absolute Moral.)
As you must know the Scientific Method is an inductive method. What you may not know is that no inductively derived truth-claim can be validly argued since inductive arguments are, one and all, formally invalid. "

Well you might like to pin the guy down on exactly what he means by 'useful', and place it in the context of evolution theory and the earth orbiting the sun, both of which have been seriously dismissed by christianity in the past. If he concedes that science was indeed 'useful' in over throwing the old christian literal interpretation of the bible WRT to those issues, then it can therefore be useful to ditch the bible altogether and start again, instead of keep 'correcting' it. Also if science can usefully correct the bible, in what sense is the bible the word of god and science isn't?

But in the end you the two of you simply have different faiths in what the future will reveal, and different cultural identities in the meantime.

Prof

ZouPrime,

Thank you. That is exactly what I've been writing, but you've put it more succinctly. He has a vice-like grip on the strawman and won't let go.

leyline,

Thanks for the welcome! (I'm just so enamored of the many wonderful members and discussions that go on in this forum).
B-e-l-i-e-v-e me, I'm under no illusions that either I or my debate partner will change beliefs. I've been down that road too many times. Nor am I out to humiliate him. Rather, I'm curious to see what he has, and what kind of case he can make for his beliefs. As well, there are many interested Christians following our conversation, so I'd like to illuminate this person's misconceptions so others understand how they are wrong.

Thanks so much, and I will continue reading any other contributions to this thread with interest.

Prof.

Prof

Bump.

Anyone else? I only ask because the conversation is happening pretty rapidly, so I need to marshal my points quickly.

Thanks.

Prof.

IoftheBholder

If we are talking about the terminology of logic, I would have to agree. Strictly speaking Scientific Method proves nothing. It's inductive nature moves the emphasis to disproof. In logical terms, a scientific law, theory, or hypothesis can never be proven only disproven.

As if to demonstrate the limitations of deduction, I do not agree with this assertion. It is not derived from previous statements, nor is it axiomatic. Logic may require formal completeness but reasoning does not. As pointed out in another post, the product of Scientific Method is not logically valid knowledge but unbiased, objective knowledge. The advantage of inductive reasoning over deductive reasoning should become apparent from this very statement; namely, that deduction necessarily depends on the ability to agree on the axions. Otherwise, deductive logic is equally fallacious.

Herein lies the strawman. An observation does not logically validate the hypothesis, it supports it or invalidates it. Science does not assert absolute proof of anything but only degrees of certainty.

Or as this gentleman has done, both. He has used logic to prove that science cannot prove anything. Yet, he has done so by distorting the concepts of science, logic, and proof. My concessions above are made to the logical sense of proof. However, I would take this as an abuse of the word proof. While proof has a strict meaning in logic as the result of deductive logic, we have a more general sense of proof as that which convinces us that something is true. Hence, for me a hypothesis can be proven when it has withstood the rigors of Scientific Method.

i!

Undercurrent

I say, once the biblical literalists go postmodern, you've already won. If, in order to come up with a reason why the bible is not "wrong" they have to demand standards of truth that are so stringent that no statement can ever be proven true or false, they've pretty much admitted that the bible is false under any more reasonable standard of truth.

echidna

This demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of even basic science & scientific method. The periodic table is not something to be verified or proven, it is a tabular reference which reflects deeper predictions made by modern atomic theory.

Atomic theory predicts that new elements will come in integer multiples of atomic number. And thus each new element with an integer atomic value is indeed a verification of that atomic theory. Were science to discover a stable element with an atomic number of 12.4, then modern atomic theory would be at odds with that evidence.

Your friend is most culpable of assassinating logic, but his assault on science is quite hollow.

NialScorva

First off, inductive reasoning is formally valid. The scientific method isn't inductive, it's abductive.

The weasel word he's using is "formally". "Formally" according to what? Is logic formally valid? Under what formal system? Formal systems are very useful, but they aren't the be-all and end-all in determining truth.

xorbie

Although this is not an oft used debate strategy, ask the guy what the hell he thinks made the computer he is using to carry on the debate.

If he actually tries to argue that scientists don't understand what the hell they are doing, point out that the machine he uses to type out this blithering nonsense is so complex that it would be impossible to assemble it without precise, correct knowledge about various fields.

Also, to say that scientists don't know why it is good to put oil in a car is equally imbecile. They don't know from a strictly formal logical standpoint (as has been pointed out), but you need to point out to this guy that the debate is NOT about formal logic, as this has nothing to do with science.