instantc wrote:
Furrowed Brow wrote:
instantc wrote: Do you or do you not agree that if a theory contradicts itself logically, we can rule it out without testing it empirically? .
What logic are we using. Boolean, predicate logic, Hegelian, fuzzy and many valued logic (there are many), modal, intuitionistic (does not except excluded middle or double negation), paraconsistent (non classic that treats contradictory information as informative) etc.
To be honest I'd be inclined to stick with classic two valued logic and say yes.
instanc wrote:Just answer yes or no
But here's the problem. How do we know that we have been thorough and worked through every possibility including concepts we are as yet to think up. Let's say we have a theory that classic logic and our best models says is a inconsistent, and we do a series of experiments that shows this theory is not only very accurate but makes correct predictions other valid theories just can't explain. I suspect we change our logic. Schrödinger invented his famous cat is both dead and alive thought experiment to disprove the Copenhagen interpretation. What happens now? The contradiction is used to illuminate what it is supposed to disprove. Go figure.
Maybe the correct approach is to call out contradictions where we find them, and collect evidence as best we can, and try to explain the data with the least number of contradictions using the most plausible logic. But we may end up with a view of reality and a logic that is a long way from both common sense and any simple logic we might draw with Venn diagrams. When evidence contradicts our ingrained sensibilities I think evidence wins.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be problematic, nor do I want to exaggerate the usefulness of logical analysis. Goat here, whom I was talking to, thinks that even if a theory suggests two mutually exclusive outcomes, we cannot rule out that theory without testing it around in a laboratory. That is an odd position indeed that makes debating very frustrating and difficult.
That is not what I said. If two different theories have two different , mutually exclusive predictions, you can only tell which is correct via verification. Now, quite often, it would be in the lab, Sometimes, it is via observation (Eisenstein's GR was partly verified through the prediction light would bend around the sun.)
If you can't have verification.. .. then you can't tell if a proposition is true.
The ontological arguments tend to be garbage, because quite often, they start with the conclusion, and work backwards to an unverifiable premise.
It might be frustrating..but heck.. if you can't at least give real world data for your claims, how can you show you know what you claim to be true is true?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
I think I understand now. Most of the people posting in this thread do not adequately understand what an argument is. I mean, here you are suggesting that an argument is basically the same thing as a claim and that is totally false. An argument is a logical construct that contains premises and a conclusion. The premises contain evidence that is used to justify a conclusion. Obviously invalid and unsound arguments are not evidence, but valid and sound argument are.
