Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

God and Science ^ | Sept 2002 | Richard Deem

[Ahban]

Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?

In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone. For many things, especially in the arena of biology, it is difficult or impossible at this time to generate any kind of statistical model to even do the test. However, this will not always be the case. The biological model for ID will stand or fall on the basis of genetics. There is a certain statistical probability for mutations, which is absolutely known. There are also known genetic sequences that differ from one another. Evolution claims that all life is descended from previous life, and the fossil record gives us the approximate time at which species appeared. Statistical calculations can be made on the basis of divergence. Complete genomic sequences are just beginning to be completed. There will always be some unknowns or uncertainties, so the level of ID will have to be pretty good to be accepted by the general scientific community.

Is Intelligent Design (ID) a valid scientific theory?

ID theory has been criticized on the following basis:

1. No model has been presented
2. Since there is no model, there are no predictions from the theory
3. No refinement of the theory is possible

In an attempt to be all-inclusive, most ID proponents have failed to

1. define the Intelligent Designer
2. reject young-earth creationism

A nebulous theory can never be tested. The Designer must be proposed or there will be no model to test. Most of the potential Designers are described in religious works that contain statements about the natural world that can be tested against the record of the natural world. For this reason, it is necessary to identify the Designer. Because of the failure to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism, ID has been labeled as a repackaging of scientific creationism. Deceptive or unsupported "science" cannot be allowed to be part of ID or the entire concept will be discredited.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.

Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and "intelligent" processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design.

Characteristics of a successful ID model

A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:

1. The intelligent Designer is identified
2. The model is detailed
3. The model can be refined
4. The model is testable and falsifiable
5. The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA (see Evolutionary Descent of Man Theory- Disproved by Molecular Biology).

Characteristics of Christian supernaturalism

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism

Characteristic	Anti-Supernatural	Supernatural
Cosmology	eternal multiverse	single transcendent beginning
Time	infinite space time foam	finite duration
Laws of physics	breakdown at 10-43 sec.	fixed
Fine tuning	explained by infinite # universes	extreme fine tuning is designed
Probability	only likely events will occur	creation involved miracles that could not occur by chance

The table above gives some of the characteristics of Christian supernaturalism compared to naturalism. Contrary to atheistic assertions, the Christian ID model does not claim that the universe is perfect. The idea that a perfect God would not create a universe less than "perfect" is logically flawed. The biblical model states that the universe is flawed - for the purpose of allowing humans the choice to love or reject God. The model also states that this imperfect universe will be replaced by a perfect universe once its purpose has been fulfilled. Those humans who chose to love God will be perfected by their own permission into sinless, loving creatures. Why didn't God create this perfect universe in the first place? Forcing creatures to be prefect would abrogate their free will and prevent them expressing true love, since they would have no choice. Humans who want to spend eternity with God chose now to give up their ability to sin or be unloving in the future new universe, where no such choices will exist.

Predictions of the Christian ID model compared to naturalism

Because of the nature of the laws of physics, it seems likely that none of the characteristics in the above table can be absolutely known. However, there are a number of predictions that each theory makes, which can be tested by further study of the universe and life on the earth.

What are some specific predictions made by the two models?

Predictions of Naturalism vs. Christian ID

	Characteristic	Anti-Supernatural	Christian ID
1.	Single transcendent beginning	will be refuted	evidence will increase
2.	Fine tuning	"design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge	more examples of extreme fine tuning will be found, indicating true design
3.	Uniqueness of earth	many rocky planets with oceans and continents will be found	earth-like planets will be found to be rare or non-existent
4.	Existence of life in the universe	life will be found to be abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics	extraterrestrial life will be rare or non-existent and advanced life will be found only on earth
5.	Prebiotic chemistry	a naturalistic scenario for the origin of all biochemical pathways and replicative molecules will be found	the universe was designed to support living systems, but their creation required ID by God
6.	Origin of Life	Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria)	Life emerged early under adverse conditions. Life has always been complex
7.	New designs in nature	Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common	No restriction on designs with the possibility that new designs would be created "overnight"
8.	Mass extinction events	Slow recovery	No restrictions on "recovery" period as new species are created

What is the scorecard so far? Science tells us that:

1. There is no evidence for more than one universe or one creation event.
2. Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10¹²⁰.
3. No other rocky planets have been found. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.
4. No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful.
5. It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system.
6. Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.
7. Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.
8. Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.

---

Home | Answers | Design | Creation | Bible | Slideshows | Theology | Cults | Tribulation | Life Issues | Discovery | God's Love | Abortion | Discussion | Links | About us | Contact | Newsletter | e-Card | Webmaster | Personal | Humor | Search

	Apologetics
		Answers for Atheists
		Design vs. Evolution
		Biblical Creation
		Bible Authenticity
		Slideshows
		Christian Theology
		Cults of Christianity
		Christian Tribulation
		Christian Life Issues
		Discovery Course
		God's Love
		Abortion
		Discussion Forum
		Links
	Ministry Info
		About us
		Contact us
		Newsletter
	General
		Send an e-Card
		Webmaster Resources
		Personal Pages
		Humor
	Search
		Advanced Search
		Site Map
		Email Page

[donh]

I id not say 'cause', I said allows. I do not even disagree that selection destroys bad mutations. My point is after all that you say. My point is that a single mutation does not create a new function. If you agree with that, then what I said follows from it.

I fail to see how that was your point. An any rate, in response to this point:

1) To you it looks like a new function. Maybe that is because you only observe the current manifestation of the function, and fail to see the millions of years the function took to evolve from some other form.

2) Maybe it is, indeed, a new function. Why should that bowl me over? What is so impossible about a mechanism that was evolved for one reason being employed for another by a happy accident? If a happy accident, like, say, discovering that those keen bug trappers hanging from your arms actually allow you to increase your hunting range by orders of magnetude if you flap them, the survival advantage of this discovery is huge compared to the incremental of survival advantage we have been talking about. It should be an instant keeper by the stochastic rules we are following.

[donh]

Shells do not, they are discarded when an organism grows.

So is hair; so are skin cells; so is stomach bile.

Therefore they are secondary evidence, not direct evidence.

I cannot contradict you when you make up your own categories.

In addition, there is nothing intrinsic to the shell. The shapes of it are like the colors of feathers or the skin color of humans. They are not something which defines a species, a genus or any other biological entity.

This is not meaningful to me. There are lots of things intrinsic to a shell. A lobster shell cannot be subtituted successfully for a clam shell, because of their respective instrinsic morpological conformations and biological organs of generation. A clam can create a clam shell. A lobster cannot create a clam shell.

[donh]

Why, because you day so? You are wrong about this point and you can go to any comprehensive text on logic and see that you are wrong.

Kindly give me a reference to a comprehensive text on logic which attempts to demonstrate that there never could be compelling evidence of God's existence. I own them all so I won't have any trouble looking up your cite.

And ID is exactly that, broad universal claims about evidence not yet in view so even in attempting to refute the point you confirm it by your own sprurious definition.

Oh, its no such thing. What broad universal claim is being forwarded by the attempt to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution cannot hope to account for one or more aspects of the story of life? The motivation of some of its creationist supporters might be a broad universal claim, but that and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee at your local school board meeting.

[LogicWings]

I am saying that your intelligence cannot be explained by other than it having been intelligently designed by a higher being.

Do you have any idea of what Begging the Question means?

[donh]

Haaa, haaa!!!!Imagined examples of evidence are fair game! I want to thank you. That means any imaginary evidence (a contradiction in terms) can be used to assert anything. And you call this science?

More evidence of how you can turn your mind to putty when you think formal logic is the same thing as reasoning.

I did not call it science, and I did not offer it as an assumption in an hypothesis. I offered it in answer to the inappropriate claim you made about the closure of future evidence. It is you, and not I, that have made a claim about all future evidence, sight unseen. You can point at culprits in in all directions, hold your breath until you turn blue, and stamp your feet mightily; but it is still you who are pressing claims about imagined evidence. I only offered an example for us to examine your hypothesis with.

The humor of this post is only surpassed by the horror I feel at thinking there are still people in the world that think like this.

The humor of your response is only surpassed by the horror of knowing that this cocksure, error-prone, semi-worshipful attitude about one of the feebleist pieces of our intellectual armory is so commonplace.

[donh]

I do not accept this, and I see no reason(!) to argue it. If you reject logic then there is no argument that you cannot reject because there are no rules by which to judge the answer by, pure subjectivism. There is no science, no law, no natural science, no God for that matter, because there is no chain of reasoning by which any of this can be proved.

What? Did you stay up late nights memorizing the Objectivist manifesto? Try to argue with me, ok? Not with some comic book characters from Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead. I've pointed out something important that you have skated over: unless you are talking about the exact same domain of discourse in every conversation, one case of logic is not relevant to another, except for the purposes of pulling a fast one. You can submit that "A is A" until you are blue in the face, but it, and the rest of formal logic, doesn't mean squat without an explicit domain of discourse. And, as was the case with our discussion about God and His future proof, without being willing to caugh up a domain of discourse that is explicit, unambiguously set conformant, and logic-loop free, all you are engaged in is an advanced form of the three-card monti swindle when you try to apply the "remorseless" logic of "you can't have A and not-A" to God, or anything about God, such as his future evidence.

In this case, it is painfully obvious what the swindle is: you picked a version of God the God defined as "having no trail of material evidence". And demonstrated that this definition of God can't, by definition, exist. Unfortunately for your argument, other people who are listening have other versions of God in mind, some of which subbornly exceed the parameters of your rather quaint, unhistorical definition.

[LogicWings]

Show me how a legal precident is anything other than reasoning by analogy. Lawyers are taught logic mostly as a traditional practice, and a little bit to sharpen their minds, and because very occasionally, badly over-engineered contracts or rights conflicts become so complex you practically need a venn diagram to parse them.

Why should I, you wouldn't accept them anyway. You don't accept logic, don't accept evidence, don't accept reason. There is no way to make the case and no reason to. You are free to accept or reject anything as you see fit and aren't bound by any rules. Discussion in such cases is futile. You say whatever you want as if it were fact, even when it isn't. The statement about why lawyers study logic being just an example. This opinion paraded out like it were undisputed fact. It isn't it is just your opinion. And your arguments are self contradictory. How did you conclude that legal precedent is reasoning by analogy? What is an analogy? By magic? How do you know an analogy isn't a hampster? What is a precedent? How do we know that anything follows from that which precedes it? Show me the Boolean operator that shows cause and effect, precedence and consequence. Any explanation you undertake will be dependent upon formal logic and can be proven to be so.

The reason you can't easily supply working examples is that aristotalian logic is a mighty feeble tool, that is, consequently, hardly ever actually used--as I pointed out earlier, it only supports 2 of the sixteen boolean operators: implies and negates--and even ignoring that it does so in an incredibly cumbersome, error-prone natural-language manner which has seduced people since before there was hair into committing fallacies of the excluded middle (a fancy way of saying: "plays fast and loose with the domain of discourse"). To the minor extent that is was ever of practical use, it has been supplanted by modern, usually table-driven versions of boolean algebra.

The reason you can't easily supply The reason, the reason! What reason? Oh you mean the logic chain you are using to reach back to the premises to support your reasons?

I'm sorry, but how do you know that logic supports only 2 of the 16 boolean operators? Is this an absolute fact determined by Aristotlean logic, just something you 'feel' is true, or something approximately true between the Absolute and subjective morass? How did one arrive at those modern, usually table-driven versions of boolean algebra without identifying operators that have meanings that cannot include their opposite, i.e., formal logic, as the basis for their definitions. How do you know that Boolean logic is in fact, Boolean logic and not say, Sentential Calculus instead? Is this because the words have a definite meaning, i.e., A is A, or is it because you feel it must be true otherwise what you are saying has no meaning?

Every word you use, every conclusion you draw, every argument you make, and every piece of evidence in a court of law are all directly dependent upon formal logic.

I've argued with people like you before, and it is utterly futile. I analyze your statements, show you the error, back it up with analysis how it is logically invalid, and you come back with simply contradicting what I've said, and venture more unsupported opinions. You cannot make an argument for any of your points that I cannot show that you are using formal logic to make the case. Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. I'm through wasting my time.

[LogicWings]

It is you, and not I, that have made a claim about all future evidence, sight unseen.

I have not. I have examined the premises and found that they Beg the Question. I have made no claims at all, I have said, SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

[donh]

No absolutes, ehh? Here it really is. Well, you are wrong on this point, there are absolutes and there are times when there is NO middle ground between absolute certainty and subjective morass.

Once again, I'll ask you to think more carefully about what I've actually said before going off on another ill-mannered Objectivist tear. Did I say there were no absolutes? Where did I say it? How could I make such a claim, in light of this argument?--that would be exactly the same order of silliness as your claim that there could never be evidence of god's existence.

If you don't intend to try to give me a thoughtful response, please don't bother--I need another serving of smarmy inattention to the domain of discourse problem, accompanied by the dismissive manners of a true believer, about like I need a poke in the eye with a sharp needle.

[donh]

Any explanation you undertake will be dependent upon formal logic and can be proven to be so.

Then supply the proof. You rant on and on about logic, in an ever louder voice, when all you need to do is supply one of these vaunted proofs that aristotalian logic underlies the very fabric of our thought processes. If you are such a fan of aristotalian logic, where in the heck are any of these vaunted syllogistic proofs you are being so glib and loud about? Just point--I'll go read them for myself.

[donh]

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

You made the claims I've specified. See posts #536, #616 and #623, where you did it in PH's words. Having made such a claim, about evidence not presently in view, wouldn't I, quite reasonably, expect you to show me how any evidence I might turn up, whatsoever, would not support our traditional transcendental God's existence.

[donh]

Every word you use, every conclusion you draw, every argument you make, and every piece of evidence in a court of law are all directly dependent upon formal logic.

This is completely insane. Show me the inescapable syllogistic underpinning of a feeling of melancholy; of a prozac prescription entered in evidence; of the word "disdane". Logic, formal or not, is just a tool we use to keep our thinking straight. It works well when we are thinking about really simple things confined to really simple sets. It works the opposite of really well when we think it is the ur-stuff of the universe, or even just the ur-stuff of the universe of human discourse, as you seem to have done. Logic without a proper domain of discourse is just one in a long, discreditable chain of excuses humans use to justify believing anything they like. One of us shows all the signs of mystical certainty of belief associated with this mental fuzzbomb, and it ain't me.

[donh]

I've argued with people like you before

I doubt it. I probably am one of the world's most prolific syllogism producers, and I have written programs to do AI searches for proofs, formal aristotalian, boolean, and Peano.

, and it is utterly futile. I analyze your statements, show you the error, back it up with analysis how it is logically invalid,

Oh, come on, analysis my foot! All you are doing is barfing up the objectivist party line about the fundamental ur-reality of aristotalian logic, over and over. At any rate, I don't want "analysis" (which in this case, is just another word for "rude insult") I want the friggin' syllogistic proof objectivists are always just on the tip of offering up, just before the once again lose it, issue a stream of dismissive insults, and exit stage left.

and you come back with simply contradicting what I've said, and venture more unsupported opinions.

yea, well, it isn't me who claims that aristotalian proof underlies all perceivable reality, now is it? I am content to contradict what you said, and to venture "unsupported" opinions, since I think that's the best one can do under most ordinary circumstances. I am ever ready to read the syllogistic proof that I am wrong, any time you want to supply it.

You cannot make an argument for any of your points that I cannot show that you are using formal logic to make the case. Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.

Another in a half-century chain of Objectivist empty threats. I missed your syllogistic proof that Aristotalian logic underlies my feelings of meloncholy, perhaps you could post it again?

I'm through wasting my time.

You've hardly started if you are going to cling to this bizarre notion that aristotalian logic underlies the universe.

[donh]

How did you conclude that legal precedent is reasoning by analogy?

Oh, come on. What is the point of a precident--to see how a decision in one case is like a decision in another? Maybe I can figure this out, whereas you can't, because you think you need a syllogism to think a connected set of thoughts.

[donh]

You say whatever you want as if it were fact, even when it isn't. The statement about why lawyers study logic being just an example.

Uh huh. Could you submit to me an example of the daily use of syllogistic proof (which is what aristotalian logic means) in the everyday work of a sample lawyer of your choosing?

[donh]

How do you know that Boolean logic is in fact, Boolean logic and not say, Sentential Calculus instead? Is this because the words have a definite meaning, i.e., A is A, or is it because you feel it must be true otherwise what you are saying has no meaning?

This is such religious doggeral. Its astonished me for 30 years that people can issue this line of "reasoning" with such ernestness and assurance that it means anything at all. I do not know that boolean logic isn't sentential calculus because "A is A". Without a specified domain of discourse "A is A" is just a religeous chant without meaning, like the "Om" of the zen buddists. I am pretty sure, but not positive, boolean logic isn't sentential calculus because of direct visceral experience of the two entities, and this has little to do with words having definite meanings. If I had no words to conveniently tag sentential calculus and boolean algebra with, I'd still have the distinct, and differentiating, visceral experiences of them.

[LogicWings]

This is completely insane.

No, you are insane.

Show me the inescapable syllogistic underpinning of a feeling of melancholy

Feeling are an emotional state that human beings experience.

Melancholy is a feeling.

Melancholy is a feeling that human beings experience.

See what you don’t understand is, the word ‘melancholy’ is a concept. It isn’t the concept any more than that thing outside my window is a concept, but the word ‘tree’ is a concept that represents that object outside. All concepts, all concepts, are dependent upon the laws of logic. They have to be or otherwise they have no identity to associate with the concept. The very definition of a word is completely and utterly dependent upon logic. Which is why I keep bringing up definitions. It is the logic that underlies the meaning of the word.

What throws somebody like you is when concepts subsume other concepts underneath, a concept that represents a set of concepts, which then becomes an abstraction, and then there is another abstraction which subsumes a number of abstractions underneath that and the eventual tie back to the experiential reality it is based upon is often difficult to follow, especially for ill educated or inferior intellects. The fact is though, every concept can be traced back to such concrete experiential concepts. If it cannot it is a ’floating abstraction’ and has no basis in reality. In other words, it is a fantasy. No more real than my beloved Unicorn.

Now I can drag you through all the steps necessary to establish the logic behind a feeling like melancholy, or what a prescription is, what Prozac is, how it must exist, how a doctor must prescribe it for it to be defined as a prescription, how that Prozac must have unbalanced the defendant and made him not responsible for the murder, and prove that this is all completely dependent upon formal logic, which is why lawyers study formal logic. If they don’t follow the rules of formal logic in court the opposition will object and the judge will throw it out.

You get a ticket. Go to court. In court the prosecution says, on Jan 1, 2002 the defendant parked in a no parking zone. Logic chain: It is against the law to park in no parking zones, you did park in a no parking zone, therefore you are in violation of the law. Now what part of this logic are you going to try to disprove? That it isn’t against the law park in no parking zones? (well, maybe you would), that even though you did park in the no parking zone, it wasn’t against the law (a breach of formal logic) or that you didn’t park in the no parking zone because you can prove your car was in the mechanics shop ten miles away, and you have a receipt to prove that it was there the whole day.

If my car was in the shop,

It could not have been parked in the no parking zone,

Therefore, I didn’t break the law.

Anyone who breaks the law must pay the fine,

I didn’t break the law,

Therefore I don’t have to pay the fine.

Now, notice what happened here. I used the conclusion from the previous syllogism as the premise of the next syllogism. This is called a logic chain. For the really interested among us this is called Sorites. This process can go on indefinitely, using the conclusion from a previous syllogism as the premise for the next. As long as we are confident that our original premises are grounded in valid syllogisms, we can be confident that our conclusion is coherent with reality. And reality is that thing that we cannot escape, that if we don’t conform with its rules, we die. And that is why we have logic in the first place. So that we can survive in reality.

Now, if you are smart, (and I mean you in the euphemistic sense, not the literal sense, that is already obviously not the case) you will try to argue the latter. If you do, you are following the formal logic chain, since the court with rule against you if you do anything else. You can’t argue with the logic that the law doesn’t apply to you or that it wasn’t a no parking zone because you don’t believe in no parking zones. You will follow formal logic when making the case, or you will lose. I done guarantee!!!

Reminds me of story of the ancient Greek Skeptic who argued against our being able to know anything. One day he was being chased by a rabid dog through the streets and the other philosopher’s laughed at him for his fear. He replied, “It is hard to fight human nature” (or words to that affect.) What he was really saying was that the logic of the situation compelled him to shed his beliefs in the face of self preservation. Logic chain: A bite from a rabid dog will kill me. That is a rabid dog. I don’t want to die. Therefore I run!

Logic, formal or not, is just a tool we use to keep our thinking straight.

Yes, absolutely, so if you abandon it, you don’t think straight anymore. (literally you)

It works well when we are thinking about really simple things confined to really simple sets.

This relates back to what I said about being unable to relate abstract concepts to the underlying concrete experiences. What you call ‘simple sets’ are sets, concepts (same thing) of concretes and what you imply, complex sets are really abstractions, or abstractions of abstractions.

It works the opposite of really well when we think it is the ur-stuff of the universe, or even just the ur-stuff of the universe of human discourse, as you seem to have done. Logic without a proper domain of discourse is just one in a long, discreditable chain of excuses humans use to justify believing anything they like.

I had to read this many times to get any meaning out of it at all. You are making the most classic fallacy of all with these assertions. I am making a supreme distinction between what the Universe IS and our conception of it. It is you who is confusing the two. Logic is the means by which we conceptualize and understand the Universe. It is the very foundation upon which all else rests, whether it is Boolean logic, Sentential Calculus or any other form of ‘logic,’ they are all dependent upon the foundation of Formal Logic, as first formulated by Aristotle, by which we define concepts that explain the elements of our existence. The fallacy you are making is to Reify ‘logic’ to think in terms of ‘logic’ as an object, and act as if it were that physical object. It is not. It is a very high level abstraction based upon the observations of how the human mind, every human mind, processes information about ‘Reality’, that thing that will kill you if you don’t conform to its rules.

You complaint, is, in fact, the same as mine. Logic without a proper domain of discourse is just one in a long, discreditable chain of excuses humans use to justify believing anything they like. But what is that ‘proper domain of discourse?’ The answer is: Check your premises. Check your premises. Are you premises based in reality? Some observable actual experience that can be proved by anyone in any scientific setting? Or is it a fantasy, a Unicorn dancing on clouds, a Supernatural Being the precedes all existence and is “Unsearchable in all His ways, Beyond the Understanding of men.”

It is only those whose premises are unproven and unprovable who have used logic to justify believing anything they like. But then again, if those premises where examined in the clear light of logic, they would be seen to vanish as vapors in the morning sun.

[donh]

Show me the inescapable syllogistic underpinning of a feeling of melancholy

Feeling are an emotional state that human beings experience.

Melancholy is a feeling.

Melancholy is a feeling that human beings experience.

See what you don’t understand is, the word ‘melancholy’ is a concept

What did I ask you for? The syllogistic underpinnings of a feeling. What did you give me? An irrelevant syllogism about a tag we put on these feelings. What is this an example of? Completely ignoring the problem of establishing a proper domain of discourse. What do I now know about melancholy that I didn't know before you did your syllogism? Must I repeat the question? What you have here is a dumb little word trick--it has no essential value in making decisions about the world. Do you think this syllogism would help me think what to do if my wife is crying about something I barely understand? Kindly suggest what set of syllogisms would make a good substitute for examining my direct, visceral experience of my history with my wife to enable me to think what to do?

[donh]

The answer is: Check your premises. Check your premises

Yes. Check your premises for: 1) is the domain of discourse a fully described simple set. 2) is the domain of discourse so simple and flat that there is no potential for logic-loops. (in formal math we sometimes call this type errors or violations) 3) Am I talking about the exact same domain of discourse as you?

If you truly checked your premises, to acceptable levels of mathematical rigor, rare indeed would be the attempt to apply formal logic to the ontology of the real world, or to accept that the limits of formal logics apply inescapably to it. What you appear to mean by "check your premises" is nothing more than re-assuring yourself you believe what you believe, about things that are probably true, but so far from being part of the world of mathematically conforming domains of discourse as to be ludicrous.

[donh]

The fallacy you are making is to Reify ‘logic’ to think in terms of ‘logic’ as an object, and act as if it were that physical object. It is not. It is a very high level abstraction based upon the observations of how the human mind, every human mind, processes information about ‘Reality’, that thing that will kill you if you don’t conform to its rules.

It is not my fallacy, it is my complaint. And the world of things that can kill you if you don't conform to the rules is a huge superset of formal logic, which includes some sage advice about when, and when not to employ formal logic.