Law School 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

Generic Religion - Science vs Religion

Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #120 on: June 25, 2007, 01:07:58 PM »
The meaning of QM is debatable, to say the least. How does it relate to my position?

Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #121 on: June 25, 2007, 01:09:54 PM »
And this is why I hate philosophy majors

I studied international business, worked as an analyst for a satellite company and am now heading toward law. I read philosophical stuff when I can.

GraphiteDirigible

  • ****
  • 1118
  • Hey there fancypants.
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #122 on: June 25, 2007, 01:19:13 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.

That statement is only true on a semantic level though. I said I can say that it is not absolutely valid. I didn't say it was a universal truth that it was not absolutely valid. Therefore, it was not "~P" that I stated. I believe that, depending on the perception of the situation, such laws can either be applied or not. Not that the statement itself is wrong, just whether it can really universally be applied without allowing that it also doesn't apply.

And besides, what does this have to do with moral facts?

Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #123 on: June 25, 2007, 01:21:52 PM »
Quote from: GraphiteDirigible
I can say that classical logic is not absolutely valid.

Quote from: babyeatsdingo
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.

How does the movement of small particles bear on the above?

Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #124 on: June 25, 2007, 01:24:22 PM »
Folks sometimes say QM shows bivalent logic to be weak sauce. That depends on whether the implications of QM are ontological, epistemic or both.

Gotta go.

Pace.

->Soon

  • *****
  • 18827
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #125 on: June 25, 2007, 01:41:27 PM »
this isnt about evolution anymore, is it?

mugatu

  • *****
  • 21790
  • I'll show YOU pacifist.
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #126 on: June 25, 2007, 01:42:54 PM »
should be about gelato

::ruins existence::

n/a

  • ****
  • 1832
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #127 on: June 25, 2007, 01:43:08 PM »
I think it EVOLVED into some ridiculous bickering over semantics.

But the mint chocolate chip thing that me and chica are on is 100% TCR, I think we won the debate.

GraphiteDirigible

  • ****
  • 1118
  • Hey there fancypants.
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #128 on: June 25, 2007, 01:50:12 PM »
What I was trying to find out is why classical logic leads to a reasonable belief in Christian orthodoxy.

->Soon

  • *****
  • 18827
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs Religion
« Reply #129 on: June 25, 2007, 01:52:58 PM »
i dunno, i gots me some b&j choc fudge brownie last night, and that rocks!

how come religious people always argue the big bang with what caused it to begin with, but never asked what made god?