Weight of Predisposition on Inductive Arguments

[theleftone]

I keep hear old tired and worn arguments repeated time and again. I don't expect people to be truly original on a message board, but what I find often the most curious aspect is the degree to which one's prejudice weighs in on inductive arguments. Due to the nature of inductive arguments, it's rare that they can be conclusive. Most inductive arguments from less probable/reasonable to more probably/reasonable. This being the case, the "weight" of various evidences and arguments presented to support the full inductive argument is important. Beyond these evidence and arguments, there are also a number of subjective "weights" which direct one towards accepts or rejecting an argument. With this in mind, I am curious what others here think weighs more into inductive arguments, reason (be it based on evidence or sound argumentation) or subjective weights (i.e., prejudices)?

Question for debate:

What carries more weight in one's acceptance or rejection of an inductive argument, reason or prejudice?

[QED]

Seriously, faith is, (by my definition at least), the base on which you ultimately stand. Since you have NO PROVABLE ABSOLUTES, you evidently are indeed living on faith of some sort. Are you not?

Thank goodness that there are provable absolutes in Mathematics. We could continue unpicking Dave's fallacious claim from there. We can also argue that black is white (I sometimes do this to annoy my son) -- it's just a matter of degree; while Dave might have faith in his ability to fly after launching from a cliff-top I would prefer to put my faith in the aerospace industry.

[Bro Dave]

Seriously, faith is, (by my definition at least), the base on which you ultimately stand. Since you have NO PROVABLE ABSOLUTES, you evidently are indeed living on faith of some sort. Are you not?

Thank goodness that there are provable absolutes in Mathematics. We could continue unpicking Dave's fallacious claim from there. We can also argue that black is white (I sometimes do this to annoy my son) -- it's just a matter of degree; while Dave might have faith in his ability to fly after launching from a cliff-top I would prefer to put my faith in the aerospace industry.

Sorry QED, but even mathmatical proofs are relative, not absolute. Math is an accumulation of accepted symbols, that represent agreed upon concepts that have been observed to be true for the tiny period of time we have had mathmatician. All laws, mathmatical or not, may or may not hold for ever. Guess you'll just have to continue to have faith they will remain unchanged.

[QED]

Sorry QED, but even mathmatical proofs are relative, not absolute. Math is an accumulation of accepted symbols, that represent agreed upon concepts that have been observed to be true for the tiny period of time we have had mathmatician. All laws, mathmatical or not, may or may not hold for ever. Guess you'll just have to continue to have faith they will remain unchanged.

I'm not going to argue with someone who imagines that 1+1 might some day equal 3. If we are looking for a distinction between something that requires faith and something that does not I can think of no better example.

[McCulloch]

Sorry QED, but even mathmatical proofs are relative, not absolute. Math is an accumulation of accepted symbols, that represent agreed upon concepts that have been observed to be true for the tiny period of time we have had mathmatician. All laws, mathmatical or not, may or may not hold for ever. Guess you'll just have to continue to have faith they will remain unchanged.

mathematics: The study of the relations between objects or quantities. These relations are organized so that certain facts can be derived from others by using logic. There are about 3000 categories of mathematics (e.g., applied, pure).
mathematics: a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement.

Since mathematical proofs are based on logic, are you implying that the laws of logic are relative?

Which ones?

a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false.
Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors.

In logic, the law of excluded middle, or the principle of tertium non datur (latin for: "a third is not given"), is formulated in traditional logic as "A is B or A is not B". It is a basic theorem of propositional logic, where it is written P ∨ ¬ P; that is, "P or not P".

For example, if P is

• Joe is bald

then the inclusive disjunction

• Joe is bald, or Joe is not bald

is true.

[Grumpy]

Bro Dave

Seriously, faith is, (by my definition at least), the base on which you ultimately stand. Since you have NO PROVABLE ABSOLUTES, you evidently are indeed living on faith of some sort. Are you not?

That is not faith, That is a priciple(s). Faith is not required to have principles. Principles are the conclusions we come to about the expected behavior we have towards each other after the contemplation of all of our learning and experiences up to that point in our lives(WHEW)!!! If you wish you may base your principles upon your faith, (more accurately, you have faith that the principles developed by a certain ancient group of fellow humans, passed down as oral history, embelished by some old time Steven Speilburg into wonderous stories told around the campfire, Written down centuries later after a huge game of telephone through many generations of story tellers, butchered by power hungry Empoerers, codified by the political powers of those times, etc., etc.) , but I find it unnecessary, given the current capabilities of our sciences, the ability of said sciences to turn on a dime(If necessary)to correct themselves if wrong and the explanatary power of the theories developed and tested by the scientific method.

Do I have "faith" in my fellow scientists? No, but I trust them to be truthful. If a scientist proves to be untrustworthy? Well, Milly-Vanilly has more chance of earning a music award than that scientist has of ever working again!!! You can be wrong(as in error) but don't you dare falsify(in the criminal sence) evidence. The Korean doctor that gave false evidence about cloning may spend time in jail(for fraud in getting grants). All a scientist has is his integrity, no second chances, his reputation among his colleages is gone. But I see Brother Swaggert on TV once and awhile, condemning those "Homo-sexualssss" with crocodile tears streaming down his face(that worked real well for him when he was explaining his"mendacity"). That's why you see some "Former evolutionists" in the ID ranks, their reputation is shot in real science, time to lie to rake in some cash. Or if your Cold Fusion Degree from BYU is the most expensive toilet paper you ever bought, cook up some BS conspiracy theory about 9/11 and sell videos and collect speaker's fees. To the rubes he's a physicist, to the scientific community he's a shill.

Enough of my bloviating, time to read.

Grumpy

[Bro Dave]

Sorry QED, but even mathmatical proofs are relative, not absolute. Math is an accumulation of accepted symbols, that represent agreed upon concepts that have been observed to be true for the tiny period of time we have had mathmatician. All laws, mathmatical or not, may or may not hold for ever. Guess you'll just have to continue to have faith they will remain unchanged.

I'm not going to argue with someone who imagines that 1+1 might some day equal 3. If we are looking for a distinction between something that requires faith and something that does not I can think of no better example.

Oh get serious! You do understand that it is quite likely 1+1 will "always" =2. The point I was making is that you cannot be absolutely certain, of this. Even Plancks constant appears not to be "constant" from what has been recently observed. Math is a very handy language tool we have created to model what little we have so far observed. It is littered with anmomolies that are overlooked because they obviously do not make any sense.

I repeat; There are NO PROVEABLE ABSOLUTES...PERIOD!
(however, I can't prove that... )

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

Since mathematical proofs are based on logic, are you implying that the laws of logic are relative?

Which ones?

All of them! Every single thing we "know, rests on assumptions downstream. If you ask "why?" often enough, the answer will eventually be "I do not know".

No matter how fast you dance, the fact remains that we have no absolutely unquestionalbe facts, and therefore no absolutely proveable truths.

What I find most amusing about this conversation, is that the reaction to my challanging math and science as not "absolute", is very similar to challanging Christians that God does not exist; LOTS indignation, but in the end, no way actually to prove anything,

...except to ourselves.

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

Bro Dave

Seriously, faith is, (by my definition at least), the base on which you ultimately stand. Since you have NO PROVABLE ABSOLUTES, you evidently are indeed living on faith of some sort. Are you not?

That is not faith, That is a priciple(s). Faith is not required to have principles. Principles are the conclusions we come to about the expected behavior we have towards each other after the contemplation of all of our learning and experiences up to that point in our lives(WHEW)!!! If you wish you may base your principles upon your faith, (more accurately, you have faith that the principles developed by a certain ancient group of fellow humans, passed down as oral history, embelished by some old time Steven Speilburg into wonderous stories told around the campfire, Written down centuries later after a huge game of telephone through many generations of story tellers, butchered by power hungry Empoerers, codified by the political powers of those times, etc., etc.) , but I find it unnecessary, given the current capabilities of our sciences, the ability of said sciences to turn on a dime(If necessary)to correct themselves if wrong and the explanatary power of the theories developed and tested by the scientific method.

A, Grumpy, you seem to have me confused with some “religious zealots” or other. I do not belong to any religion. And, while I have gleaned a MUCH clearer understanding of the Universe and how it came into being, and where it is all headed, I claim no ultimate knowledge. Sort of like wiping a completely obscured window pane, and beginning to see through the smears, a bit of light, if you will. This cleansing process will continue, and eventually the silly argument between science and spirituality will simply disappear, as they become mutually supportive… but not just yet.

Bro Dave

[QED]

Oh get serious! You do understand that it is quite likely 1+1 will "always" =2. The point I was making is that you cannot be absolutely certain, of this.

Talk about having a predisposition! ...Yes I can say that one plus one will always equal two, and in principle I can start unpicking your argument from there. This would seem to be a very apt way of defining the difference in our worldviews then. Yours could well be founded on a false premise if you think that it is only quite likely that one plus will always equal two. For someone to set out with a self-contradictory absolute statement such as "there are no absolutes" is getting off to the worst start I can imagine. I think you'll find that the logic that lies behind these things is a lot more robust than you give credit for.

What I find most amusing about this conversation, is that the reaction to my challanging math and science as not "absolute", is very similar to challanging Christians that God does not exist; LOTS indignation, but in the end, no way actually to prove anything

Yeah, that really shows us doesn't it.

[Rob]

Oh get serious! You do understand that it is quite likely 1+1 will "always" =2. The point I was making is that you cannot be absolutely certain, of this.

Talk about having a predisposition! ...Yes I can say that one plus one will always equal two, and in principle I can start unpicking your argument from there.

I think QED is correct, Dave's assertion that one cannot be "certain" that 1+1=2 is "self-contradictory" and illogical.

Mathematics may indeed not lead to "absolute" truth, or spiritual certainty with regards to religious questions, but we can be certain its approximations of truth are "self-consistent." It it is logically inconsistent to argue that mathematics does not provide some degree of confidence and certainty that it is illogical and self-contradictory to state 1+1!=2! The very language of mathematics, which by Dave's own beliefs are a God-given innate ability of human mind to percieve, define such an assertion as illogical.

Perhaps he missed the following statement from his own book:

[E]ven the infinite God cannot create square circles or produce evil that is inherently good. God cannot do the ungodlike thing. Such a contradiction of philosophic terms is the equivalent of nonentity and implies that nothing is thus created. A personality trait cannot at the same time be Godlike and ungodlike. Compossibility is innate in divine power. And all of this is derived from the fact that omnipotence not only creates things with a nature but also gives origin to the nature of all things and beings. (1299.1)

The cosmic mind unfailingly responds (recognizes response) on three levels of universe reality. These responses are self-evident to clear-reasoning and deep-thinking minds. These levels of reality are: (192.1)

1. Causation--the reality domain of the physical senses, the scientific realms of logical uniformity, the differentiation of the factual and the nonfactual, reflective conclusions based on cosmic response. This is the mathematical form of the cosmic discrimination.

2. Duty--the reality domain of morals in the philosophic realm, the arena of reason, the recognition of relative right and wrong. This is the judicial form of the cosmic discrimination.

3. Worship--the spiritual domain of the reality of religious experience, the personal realization of divine fellowship, the recognition of spirit values, the assurance of eternal survival, the ascent from the status of servants of God to the joy and liberty of the sons of God. This is the highest insight of the cosmic mind, the reverential and worshipful form of the cosmic discrimination.

These scientific, moral, and spiritual insights, these cosmic responses, are innate in the cosmic mind, which endows all will creatures. The experience of living never fails to develop these three cosmic intuitions; they are constitutive in the self-consciousness of reflective thinking. But it is sad to record that so few persons on Urantia take delight in cultivating these qualities of courageous and independent cosmic thinking. (192.5)

[T]hese three insights of the cosmic mind constitute the a priori assumptions which make it possible for man to function as a rational and self-conscious personality in the realms of science, philosophy, and religion. Stated otherwise, the recognition of the reality of these three manifestations of the Infinite is by a cosmic technique of self-revelation. Matter-energy is recognized by the mathematical logic of the senses; mind-reason intuitively knows its moral duty; spirit-faith (worship) is the religion of the reality of spiritual experience. These three basic factors in reflective thinking may be unified and co-ordinated in personality development, or they may become disproportionate and virtually unrelated in their respective functions. But when they become unified, they produce a strong character consisting in the correlation of a factual science, a moral philosophy, and a genuine religious experience. And it is these three cosmic intuitions that give objective validity, reality, to man's experience in and with things, meanings, and values. (192.6)

My only point is that by the standards of Dave's own professed belief in the Urantia Book, (irregardless of what one thinks of these claims) his assertion as it stands is illogical.