Ierrellus

I have 2 apples. 1+1=2.
I slice one apple in half. Each half is now a whole piece, or is, as a whole, not even considered a piece without a concept of a whole involving pieces. Thus, 1+1=3.

Ierrellus

WJ

Let's get back to the topic at hand. It seems to me that Secular was trying to use an [mathematical]analogy and in doing so, has applied it incorrectly or represented its truth value wrongly in the face of the subject matter regarding the [a] 'burden of proof'. (We're obviously not talking about rational numbers/irrational numbers, integer's, etc. as it is more philosophical for our purposes.)

What is the point then in making this analogy or assertion that it is not rational for 2+2 to equal five in the face of the burden [of proof].?

Walrus

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

John Page

Hi Walrus!

My observation is that you are changing what the quantities represent to make your point. By manipulating the definition of what is observed you obtain results that seemingly buck the system - split a rock in half and you get two (choose from "two half rocks" and "two rocks")?

To stand much chance of devising a mutually agreed proof a joint declaration of assumptions/definitions would help. Again, these items are a matter for convention.

While I have the floor (and in response to earlier posts), the person upon whom the "burden of proof" rests is also social convention. I feel sure some theistic societies effectively rule that disproof of gods will is a burden on others, not its believers. Another example is the military where, generally speaking, the commanding officer's ruling is taken as an absolute and burden of proof otherwise is on the subordinates.

Cheers, John

WJ

Hi John!

To tell you the truth, I'm not real interested in 'proof' (in all senses of the word) as it relates to convincing other's about a some thing. The only reason I entered the thread was that mathematic's and rationality was being used or suggested as some sort of analogy or standard to measure a person's [claim] truth value.

And so if the argument about what is considered adequate 'proof' lies in...'gee, if the number's don't add up it's wrong', then Secular's standard is severely limited in scope. Without getting too specific about what it is one is trying to prove (ie, the nature of a thing), I think in principle, you might agree.

Simply put, that's my point, and I think it is one of seeb's as well.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies it. Carry on gentlemen...

Walrus

John Page

Walrus:

I certainly do agree and one can get into infinite regress or circular argument by talking about the rules for making the rules, and the rules for making them ad nauseum. I think Sec was assuming (not entirely unfairly) in his example that we were already signed up to the conventions of math, which, at the level we are discussing here, seems to be pretty much internally consistent.

The debate you had illustrates my point that the burden of proof is essentially "accepted" and not "imposed".

Cheers, John

Secular Elation

I have 2 apples. 1+1=2.
I slice one apple in half. Each half is now a whole piece, or is, as a whole, not even considered a piece without a concept of a whole involving pieces. Thus, 1+1=3.

In the equation 1+1=2, when applied to your apple situation, a whole apple consituted a single "1." When you cut it in half, you now have "1/2" that whole apple. So, the new eqaution is (1/2)+(1/2)+1=2.

Secular Elation

Walrus,

Well, my whole point in my mathematical example was to prove that 2+2 can never equal anything other than 4, within algebraic mathematics. Now, if you want to discuss any matter of having the burden of proof, then that is a different matter.

NialScorva

I think you misunderstand what I mean by rules. Remember that I'm talking about valuing systems for determining proof, not the necessarily the answers themself. With the high place that math and formal logic takes in metaphysical naturalist, where proof is determined by rigid rules of derivation from initial axioms (the initial axioms that MNs are highly skeptical about), metaphysical naturalism very much values rule-based systems for deciding proof. Almost all the sciences rely on formal rules based systems for deciding what is and isn't a valid proposition.

Yes, instead of valuing a rules-based systems, they make pure moral distinctions. As far as provability goes, it's an easy two part question-- Does it appeal to my list of God-approved (tm) axioms? If not, does it intuitively feel right based upon those axioms? AKA, is this in the spirit of God's will/what does prayer tell me? The reason I don't consider this a rules based system is because the methodology of the proof doesn't rely on a strict methodology, rather it appeals back to the moral or aesthetic sense if there's not a preexisting commandment.


Hell if I know. In my experience, the best common ground is a large stick, but I'm not known for my willingness to stick around in a situation that's getting no results. Both sides seem to value honesty and negatively value hypocracy and dishonesty. The problem is that many fundies come out of the gates with the presumption that their opponents are necessarily dishonest. Come to think of it, quite often their opponents assume dishonesty and hypocracy as well.

NialScorva

Very true.

Also note that there's a huge difference between the statement "It is the case that..." and "I believe that...". "It is the case that there are 20 planets" is false, but "I believe that there are 20 planets" could be completely true. When you put "You should believe.." there, it's even uglier.

Well, all of those burdens of proof are the correct one being on you. You are trying to get another to accept that evolution is true. You are making a truth claim that "It is the case that evolution(insert details here) is an accurate description of the world." It is up to you to support it. The three cases are all methods of proving, not burdens of proof.

Yup. That's life. Some people aren't gonna accept any proof, I can't see how you can form any system that generates an irresistable proof, not when a person can just define you to be wrong from the outset.

Ah, no. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that you have to justify your beliefs to anyone. I'm saying that if you want another person to accept your statement (whether belief or truth claim) into their own view of the universe, you have to do it on grounds that they are willing to accept. The game I'm talking about only gets played when you are trying to communicate a statement with another person. Are you asking about personal validation, such as how do I as an individual know what is true and what isn't?

NialScorva

Actually, 2+2=1 in mod 3 arithmetic, 2+2=2 in mod 2 arithmetic. Imagine a coin counter that wraps quarters by 50s. Dump 49 into the machine, then dump 10 more. How many are in the counter? Nine of course. All depends upon how you set up your system.