Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

When the two are in direct conflict, which do you believe?

Science
 51 (52.6%)
Religion
 21 (21.6%)
Depends
 18 (18.6%)
i have no beliefs.
 7 (7.2%)

Total Members Voted: 89

Author Topic: Generic Religion - Science vs Religion  (Read 10721 times)

GraphiteDirigible

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Hey there fancypants.
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #110 on: June 25, 2007, 02:40:25 PM »
Quote
False dichotomy.

False dichotomy depends upon the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity. Your first clue that this is so is that a false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.

There is no other scheme where false dichotomy is apparent than through classical logic?
Happy colored marbles that are rolling in my head
I put 'em back in the jacket of the one I love
Carry that velvet sack full of pretty colored marbles
And I'll ask you for 'em back, when I'm ready and done

GraphiteDirigible

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Hey there fancypants.
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #111 on: June 25, 2007, 02:41:11 PM »
Alright.

I say classical logic is absolutely valid. Do you agree or disagree?

There's no need to tell me why you agree or disagree. Just tell me whether you agree or disagree.

I disagree on the basis that there are no provable absolutes.
Happy colored marbles that are rolling in my head
I put 'em back in the jacket of the one I love
Carry that velvet sack full of pretty colored marbles
And I'll ask you for 'em back, when I'm ready and done

babyeatsdingo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #112 on: June 25, 2007, 02:43:21 PM »
If I say either A or B must be true and you say "false dichotomy!", you are saying it is not the case that either A or B must true (perhaps you think C is an option), which is to say your objection relies upon the validity of classical logic.

babyeatsdingo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #113 on: June 25, 2007, 02:50:20 PM »
Quote
There's an invisible teacup out beyond the orbit of Mars.  No instrument will ever detect it, but it's there, damn you!

Unlike the statement "classical logic is absolutely valid", this statement above may be denied.

GraphiteDirigible

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Hey there fancypants.
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #114 on: June 25, 2007, 02:50:45 PM »
If I say either A or B is true and you say "false dichotomy!", you are saying it is not the case that either A or B is true, which is to say your objection relies upon the validity of classical logic.

A) Why? I still don't believe you. Show me how a false dichotomy is dependent on classical logic.

B) If it does rely on classical logic, and what you said previously: "You cannot use classical logic to deny classical logic but in order to deny anything you must use classical logic which means classical logic may not be denied." is a false dichotomy doesn't that present a conundrum about classical logic itself? How can any axiom deny denial?
Happy colored marbles that are rolling in my head
I put 'em back in the jacket of the one I love
Carry that velvet sack full of pretty colored marbles
And I'll ask you for 'em back, when I'm ready and done

babyeatsdingo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #115 on: June 25, 2007, 02:52:18 PM »
I say classical logic is absolutely valid, PW. Do you agree or disagree?

I think you get it by now. If you answer you'll probably "say" something like "Bleh" again.

GraphiteDirigible

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Hey there fancypants.
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #116 on: June 25, 2007, 02:53:56 PM »
Quote
There's an invisible teacup out beyond the orbit of Mars.  No instrument will ever detect it, but it's there, damn you!

Unlike the statement "classical logic is absolutely valid", this statement above may be denied.

I can say that classical logic is not absolutely valid because when I take mushrooms P =/= P. It is all dependent on a certain way of perceiving things. When you get right down to it there are no provable absolutes.
Happy colored marbles that are rolling in my head
I put 'em back in the jacket of the one I love
Carry that velvet sack full of pretty colored marbles
And I'll ask you for 'em back, when I'm ready and done

GraphiteDirigible

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Hey there fancypants.
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #117 on: June 25, 2007, 02:55:30 PM »
The more we learn about the universe, the less we are sure of axioms like P == P.
Happy colored marbles that are rolling in my head
I put 'em back in the jacket of the one I love
Carry that velvet sack full of pretty colored marbles
And I'll ask you for 'em back, when I'm ready and done

babyeatsdingo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #118 on: June 25, 2007, 02:57:59 PM »
Quote
I can say that classical logic is not absolutely valid.

Classical logic must be absolutely valid in order for this statement to be true which means your statement is false.

Consider the proposition P: "classical logic is absolutely valid". I say P is true. You say ~P is true. If you are correct then it must be true that either P or ~P obtains (i.e., law of excluded middle) and must be false that both P and ~P obtain (i.e., law of non-contradiction), which is to say that classical logic is absolutely valid.

n/a

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1965
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #119 on: June 25, 2007, 03:00:36 PM »
And this is why I hate philosophy majors