• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

LOL

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
... Please rephrase that. Thanks.

Okay.

Philosopher One: Here is the case for A, hereafter known as X. <Insert X here>

Philosopher Two: ~A! <Insert case for B, which does not refute the case for A>

Philosopher One: No, A. <Insert X here>

Philosopher Two: ~A! <Insert case for C, which does not refute the case for A>

Philosopher One: No... A. <Insert X here>

Philosopher Two: ~A! <Insert more jibberjabber>

Philosopher One: STFU.
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
And YOU said that scientific theories could be judged on the merits of logic, wich sad to say, no it can't

So if Theory Y comes to conclusion X as well as ~X, then it can be valid, as well as sound?

NO. It can't. Science is subject to logic.
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”

- Avicenna


So... I hope that you're not trying to refute me with the very law that I'm referring to. Please just agree, I don't want to hurt anyone. I'm also confused and I have a headache.


Quantum theory is quite dissonant, but it doesn't break the law of noncontradiction.

Next, we'll be talking about relativism, right?
 

Beyonder

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
66
MBTI Type
intp
No, I was referring to the law of non-contradiction not being logical, here. Just because it can be expressed in a symbolic form doesn't make it logical per definition. Besides, I'm always, always talking about symbolic logic when I mention the word 'logic'. I for one have never seen any scientific paper actually employing symbolic logic. Maths doesn't count. And, check the second link. The law of non-contradiction isn't particularly valid anymore when talking about quantummechanics.

ferunandesu said:
Please just agree, I don't want to hurt anyone. I'm also confused and I have a headache.
Agree? Me? Nope. I'm just getting started. And no, argumentum ad misericoriam fallacies don't work on me.

Next, we'll be talking about relativism, right?
No, relativism sucks. I'm a hardcore sceptic though, but I don't use those kinds of arguments in regular argumentation since that would be a party-crasher (A Crappy Dialogue/Question about Falliblism & Skepticism: Philosophy Forums I'm ying, over there. That's my actual name).
 
Last edited:

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
The law of non-contradiction is logical, since logic would not exist without it.

And the law of non-contradiction is still valid in light of valid claims from quantum physicists. You just have to learn more about it. I'm not a physicist, but I do know that when quantum physicists make the claim that a particle can say, exist in more place than one at once, or that one can simultaneously be in one place and also not be in that place, that they're simply teasing people with these apparent counter intuitions and paradoxes. They usually don't go further along and explain that their real claim has to do with probability.

I don't know how to explain it properly, so here:

Nuclear Fusion and the Proton - INTP Central

"The proton is not just a particle with a position and a momentum, flying around in space. The proton is an entity unlike anything we observe in the macroscopic world. It is a quantum entity, and it exists as a superposition of many states, all assigned a certain probability."
 

Beyonder

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
66
MBTI Type
intp
The law of non-contradiction is logical, since logic would not exist without it.

And the law of non-contradiction is still valid in light of valid claims from quantum physicists. You just have to learn more about it. I'm not a physicist, but I do know when quantum physicists make the claim a particle can say, exist in more place than one at once, or that one can simultaneously be in one place and also not be in that place, that they're simply teasing people with these apparent counter intuitions and paradoxes. They usually don't go further along and explain that their real claim has to do with probability.

I don't know how to explain it properly, so here:

Nuclear Fusion and the Proton - INTP Central

"The proton is not just a particle with a position and a momentum, flying around in space. The proton is an entity unlike anything we observe in the macroscopic world. It is a quantum entity, and it exists as a superposition of many states, all assigned a certain probability."

The proton, just like an atom or nucleus has never been actually observed; it's a theoretical particle with all the evidence pointing in the direction of it's existance. Particle accelerators measure what happens when two sub-molecular particles collide, they don't record observations. And on superpositioning, well, since it does imply multiple contradictory variables, the law of non-contradiction is broken on the account of particles being theoretical and having simultanious contradictory properties at once.

It's a red herring anyway. The law of non-contradiction isn't logical per definition, and that's what we where talking about.
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
And on superpositioning, well, since it does have multiple contradictory variables

Quantum probabilities cannot contradict since they aren't making discrete claims. And, as Hustler said, protons exist as a superposition of many states. There really is no 'point', if you will. In fact, a 'single' proton can theoretically exist at any point in the universe (I'm guessing), the probability of it's position just lowers nearly exponentially (again, I'm guessing) as you move farther and farther away from what we perceive, or guess, to be a point.

The law of non-contradiction isn't logical per definition

Um, no. Logic as we know it would not exist without it. Sure, there's no way to know if the law is 100% true, but it's a damn strong claim seeing as how no one has ever observed something different.
 

Beyonder

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
66
MBTI Type
intp
Um, no. Logic as we know it would not exist without it.
That would make it a logical a priori, thus falling outside of the realm of logic itself. Thanks for conceding on that point. Anyway, since the law of non-contradiction isn't logical itself, and you where claiming that logic would have to be an intrinsic part in judgeing if a theory is scientifically valid or not on the account of that, and you conceded to this point, then would it be fair to say that logic isn't important in judgeing if a theory is scientific or not?
BTW, the argument about the scientific method just is a non-issue (just email some scientist if you're still interrested; I can't help it if you trust wikipedia over Karl Popper himself). I already explained that logic is used in the finding of theories, not in judgeing if they are scientifically valid. That's testability. This argument is over, because I'm not going to be convinced of anything you bring to the table, and apparently, neither are you. So we are both wasting time. And I'm only quitting on this account because I'm getting really bored, here.
Sure, there's no way to know if the law is 100% true, but it's a damn strong claim seeing as how no one has ever observed something different.
That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

And I'm not calling you ignorant here (always have to be careful when calling this fallacy out, lol).

And because the law of non-contradiction isn't testable, adhereing to it would be dogmatical (OK, now I AM being sceptical). And because it's a non-evident claim wich can't be proven either way, I'd rather postpone judgement about it's existence, instead of making a judgement either way. Doesn't take away that it's a nice heuristical device.
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
That would make it a logical a priori, thus falling outside of the realm of logic itself. Thanks for conceding on that point.

If it falls outside of the realm of logic, then why are you calling it invalid?

since the law of non-contradiction isn't logical itself

No, it's not testable. Perhaps you should read up on metalogic.

then would it be fair to say that logic isn't important in judgeing if a theory is scientific or not?

No.

I already explained that logic is used in the finding of theories, not in judgeing if they are scientifically valid. That's testability.

You'll need logic to test a theory. Logicians can also generate a range of theoretical equivalences that could possibly show a theory needs to be overhauled, or simply refined.

That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

No, it's not. I'm not saying that it's 'true', as in 100% certain. I'm saying that the probability of it being false is rolling down an asymptote headed towards zero, since everyday that we go along in this universe without observing the law being broken bolsters the inductive validity.

Doesn't take away that it's a nice heuristical device.

Right. I have to go do my homework now. The class? You guessed it, Symbolic Logic. It's frustrating since I already know it well, aside from never having done a proof in PL.

Here, you can read the lecture notes. Or just skip that and head off to MIT OpenCourseWare for the straight dope.
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
Beyonder said:
No, I was referring to the law of non-contradiction not being logical, here. Just because it can be expressed in a symbolic form doesn't make it logical per definition. Besides, I'm always, always talking about symbolic logic when I mention the word 'logic'.

Beyonder said:
Did I say that? No. Strawman.

So take your pick: not logical, illogical, or logically invalid. They're all the same in this context. Saying that logic is either one is a contradiction, and you can't seem to express the problem that you have with logic without using logic. This alone is a testament to logic's importance to science, and to thought in general.

Anyways, as to whether or not logic is logical itself, that's the realm of metalogic.
 

Beyonder

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
66
MBTI Type
intp
So, you have no idea what a priori means? Get a dictionary. I already trashed your arguments, and I don't need your concent to do so. This argument is over, has been already since page two. You being unreasonable doesn't change that. "I can give you arguments. I can't give you insight."
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
So, you have no idea what a priori means? Get a dictionary. I already trashed your arguments

I know what 'a priori' means.

The "God of the gaps" and a law that formed without a direct observation of it's trueness, but through mere thought, are not the same thing. BECAUSE, the "God of the gaps" has a recursive range of alternate explanations that ARE NOT equivalent to the original. However, if you wanted to change the law of noncontradiction, then the alternates would be equivalent in all cases.

But this is not your argument. Your argument is that logical validity isn't an important part of scientific falsification, and it is indeed.
 

Beyonder

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
66
MBTI Type
intp
But this is not your argument. Your argument is that logical validity isn't an important part of science, and it is indeed.

Strawmanning again? Reread post #20. Post #29 for my position on the law of non-contradiction. Like I said, I already am done with all of your points; even the red herrings.
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
Strawmanning again? Reread post #20. Post #29 for my position on the law of non-contradiction. Like I said, I already am done with all of your points; even the red herrings.

Reread my replies to them, and then reread your irrelevant objections (or red herrings). You've already admitted that all of my arguments are right.

You see,

Beyonder said:
Anyway, since the law of non-contradiction isn't logical itself, and you where claiming that logic would have to be an intrinsic part in judgeing if a theory is scientifically valid or not on the account of that, and you conceded to this point, then would it be fair to say that logic isn't important in judgeing if a theory is scientific or not?

This is where you went awry. I quickly gave you a response, and you countered with the law of noncontradiction and quantum superposition, which I quickly showed was both irrelevant and wrong. You claiming that Poppler shows that logic isn't important is wrong as well.
 

Beyonder

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
66
MBTI Type
intp
Yes, well maybe you're suffering from egocentric speech, a hallmark of a childlike mind. I suggest reading up on Lev Vygotsky and his theories. It could also be that you're just having a fit of compensation for your own inferiority feelings; that's Adler, for if you're not aware of psychological theory.
Being incapable of apprehending someone elses arguments and your insistance of being right really does point in both directions. Technically, yes, that was an ad hominem. It also is my psychological analysis of you.
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
Funny, I thought the same thing of you. You're still going to have to show that logic isn't important in refuting any given theory. But wait, you've already admitted that it is, then why do you say that you've shredded my arguments? You continually admit that I'm right.

There's an observable cycle here. I made the OP, you made a claim. I as well as Hilbert showed you that your claim is unreasonable. You argue. I show that your point is irrelevant to the claim you made. You try to dismiss this with various terms and such. I show that the points are irrelevent, and occasionally wrong. You repeat. I repeat, and so on.

You don't have a point to your argument, you admit to this, and then you continue to argue. Why?

Furthermore you resort to ad hominem when you realize that none of your objections are valid, and that you occasionally object to what I'm saying with the very point that you were objecting (in effect).

Also, my speech isn't egocentric, I'm simply getting tired of continually fleshing out the same details.

Simply put, logic underlies all of science. Observation is important, sure, but I didn't say that it wasn't. What could you do with an observation if you couldn't think logically? Logic underlies both epistemology and testability, and it can be used to object to the merit of a theory, since a logically derived falsehood is grounds for further study and in all cases the kink is eventually ironed out. I don't have to type all of this explicitly for it to be true, and it stands that your claim that observation is waaay more important than logic is false. They are equal in the sense that there would be no science without either one, and I think that you know this, so I'm still not quite sure what you're arguing about. You've trashed no argument. Everything that I've said here is consistent.
 

Beyonder

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
66
MBTI Type
intp
You still here? Going on about this stuff?

OK, I'll help you on your way. Logic doesn't underly epistemology or testability. You're mucking up 'reason' with 'logic', there (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason p... nevermind. Just read all of it.). And I'm not the only one who claims that observation is most important in the scientific method. Popper and Hawking agree with me on that account. But you apparently don't know anything about philosophy of science, lol, making this argument rather pointless.
Besides, you still being here putting all this effort into your little post does make it look like I struck a nerve. Again, lol
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
I've been looking at other stuff for the most part. My homework, laundry, shower, etc.

You're going to have to post evidence for your claim that Logic isn't behind both epistemology and testability. Since I'm quite sure that if I read the Critique of Pure Reason, then I would find that no such claim is made.

I'm mucking up 'reason' with 'logic'? Logic is the study of reasoning. Now you're going to have to offer me an example of logically invalid, yet sound reasoning. You tried with quantum superposition, but as I said, once you grasp quantum physics you'll understand that it doesn't break any laws of logic. Also, I'm quite sure that no one could 'grasp' something that is illogical (both valid and sound) since not being logical would constitute not being reasonable (as I said, logic is the study of reasoning) and therefore would be outside of the realm of pure thought. I'm not saying that there aren't things that exist outside of pure thought, but that neither you, Einstein, Popper, Hawking, Godel, nor even William James Sidis could understand it. This is why I'm not going to read anything that you recommend, unless, of course, I feel like it.
 
Top