Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - babyeatsdingo

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 17
61
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:57:59 AM »
The most reasonable explanation for some event E can be mistaken. So?

62
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:56:25 AM »
I didn't say Aristotle "invented" logic. In now way did Aristotle create classical logic. He merely articulated it well and so is credited for having discovered it. The rules of classical logic express what must be true in all possible worlds.

63
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:49:40 AM »
Let's look at the flat earth example you bring up, GD.

Did some folks once depend upon classical logic (laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity) to argue and say they know that the earth is flat? Let's suppose some did. Let's suppose further that these same argued thus:

1. The Bible says the earth is flat
2. The Bible cannot be mistaken
3. The earth is flat

Is the argument valid? Yes. That's because classical logic is valid. Is the argument sound? That depends, for one, on whether or not the Bible really says the earth is flat. I don't read the Bible as saying the earth is flat. Few if any do. Did classical logic fail us? No. Those who hastily concluded that the first premise is true failed us.

All valid arguments are upheld by classical logic. That doesn't mean we can fault classical logic when we come to learn that some argument is unsound.


64
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:40:46 AM »
I suppose Aristotle is credited for properly discovering and articulating classical logic. Anyway, yes, we must assume classical logic. It is axiomatic. It is a necessary precondition for truth, knowledge, rational inference, dissent etc.

65
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:35:02 AM »
It is not possible for new information to contradict classical logic for the very notions of information and contradiction depend upon classical logic.

66
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:33:27 AM »
Quote
Great.  But how do people manage to have differing ideas to begin with?  I can't assume they're just dense and incapable of reasoning out the "right" answer; some of the most brilliant people I know disagree on some very basic things.

Consider the O.J. Simpson trial. Those jurors brought some non-rational baggage with them. Emotion, presupposition, prejudice, bias, agenda, policy, moral and aesthetic value unfortunately play too large role in our determinations of fact at times. Our failed attempts to find the truth in a reasonable, objective manner, without passion or prejudice, does not mean that there is no truth to find or that we can't know with confidence what the truth is.

Anyway, smart people differ on the question of God, for example, not because there isn't a right answer. God either does or does not exist, be sure. They differ at times due to both rational and non-rational factors. This is why it is better to be honest than intelligent when you approach a question of great existential import like the question of God.

67
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:14:22 AM »
If you are asking about the what makes disagreement intelligible, then I've answered you. If you are asking for the psychological, cultural, sociological and anthropological factors that motivate disagreement between people as we experience them then I fear I've failed you thus far.

68
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:10:21 AM »
Quote
So how can people disagree?

Only upon the presumption that there is a right answer and that classical logic is always valid to help them determine which answer is the right answer.

69
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:04:19 AM »
Classical logic is a necessary precondition for the possibility of disagreement, among countless other things we take for granted. If, for example, classical logic is not valid then you cannot say you and your friend exist in the first place, much less can you say you are talking to each other about the same subject matter. Which is to say that my answer to your question is that your question is unintelligible and literally meaningless unless classical logic is universally valid.

70
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 09:52:33 AM »
If I say "the historic orthodox Christian view is correct" then how with the resources of your worldview would you dispute this claim? If you deny classical logic then how do you say I am mistaken? Moreover, how could you deny classical logic anyway? What does it mean to deny classical logic on your view?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 17