Replies

Thank you so much for your kind words and the ping to your post! IMHO, the science threads are must helpful to Lurkers where there is mutual respect so that the subjects rather than the correspondents are challenged.

I would like to add something to the sidebar you are having with DoughtyOne:

It seems to me that a lot of students go through public education on auto-pilot and end up not really understanding the terms used, in science of course - but other subjects as well. Perhaps some are not exposed to the language? Perhaps some simply don’t care unless/until they specialize in higher education. And yet, in such a high profile and hot subject as intelligent design (or politics) it makes quite a difference if the correspondents are speaking the same language and are on “the same page”.

In the case at hand, the term “theory” is not a measure of confidence. The amassing of evidence in support of a theory is the measure of confidence. The term “law” however can be taken as a measure of confidence.

But a "law" is not subject to "proof" - that is a mathematics term. "Conjecture" (the rough equivalent of theory which lacks evidence in math) is subject to "proof". In science, a theory which lacks evidence is often called a "speculation".

The term “belief” is more correctly associated with philosophy or theology. But science derives from philosophy (philosophy > science) – after all, if nature were not logical and intelligible then science would have nothing to do.

Thus, a person can say that he "believes" a scientific "theory" or a mathematical "conjecture". But that is philosophy/theology.

But the reverse does not hold (science > philosophy). IOW, people who derive their belief system from science are not seeing the whole picture, the epistemology. IMHO, the proper term for this "belief" would be "second reality" - an imagining which ignores other knowledge. I would also say they are tunnel-visioned to the objects of scientific investigation.

cornelis introduced this issue on at least two other threads. And the discussion is ongoing, with many helpful contributions by betty boop. (the discussion thread)

To quote cornelis:

Yes, tautology is the logical term, the first move in classical logic. If A is A it is not non-A. Tautology is involved in definition, to some degree. A thing is what it is. This is obvious and tautological. It is also true. In fact, if the world wasn't made of multiple things, we wouldn't need dictionaries. If someone slips up and gets too complex, just refer them to rule number one, A is A and that is all you need to say. - post 459

The tautological points out a logical aspect. As the word's etymology will indicate, tauto= from the Greek "the same." But, knowledge of an event that we obtain through sense perception is and is not the same thing. Otherwise that tree you see is growing in your head. And then everything is in everything and the game is over. There is nothing more to say.

Magritte pointed out by example, C'est nest pas une pipe. Everybody can see that it is. Obviously, it is and is not a pipe.

This suggest different modal aspects of existing things. Before we apply the concept of the tautological for practical argumentation, we should first recognize that there are kinds of knowledge, biological, logical, physical, mathematical.

It may be that with each of the kinds of knowledge their is a self-referential aspect that is inescapable. But we can't substitute one for the other on a false notion of the tautological. Not at all.

Still, the concept of unity is a riddle, both for human consciousness and for the world of nature. I tried to ask this question in a conversation with js1138 here.

Leibniz pointed out something along these lines. If you posit "the same," you imply the other. Once you have A, you imply non-A. And the objection should be respected: this doesn't say what non-A is. That's right. And a logical proof is not a proof of its existence. One can't reason anything into existence. What to do? Was Descartes & co. on track to shrink the universe to A for the sake of certainty and never mind what might be non-A? The only way out of this conundrum is to present A, and show something that is non-A. Philosophy did this long ago when it posited a First Cause. It spoke to the existence of it. Knowledge about it may be limited to describing it extrinsically and in relation to causality in general.

If the influence of extrinsic causes depends on the existence of extrinsic causes there may be some preliminary work to do. On the other hand, it is a dangerous game to assume that the scope of our knowledge is identical with the object of our knowledge. - post 493.

But assuming that “the scope of our knowledge is identical with the object of our knowledge” is the risk when a person’s beliefs (philosophy/theology) are based on science (science > philosophy).

I really don’t wish to get two identical discussions going on separate threads, but if this subject is of interest to anyone here, please come and join us!

I do not believe you. Maybe you want to think you're pro-debate, but I've been on way too many of these threads to believe you (as representative of the average evolutionist, not you personally). No way. And let me tell you what. I don't care anymore. You have harmed your own credibility and believability with this stubborn arrogance. Yeah, that's right. Until you guys stop being so pompous, students aren't even going to buy what you are selling. So thanks. You help my side. And saying that you welcome debate isn't the same thing as welcoming it. So no credit.

I have been pinged several times to this discussion, and I have been repeatedly cited as not responding to a particular post by cornelis.

The reason I have not responded is that cornelis' post is completely unresponsive and irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, as were all responses to my original argument.

Just because you have a hammer doesn't make everything a nail.

Thanks for the post. I'll check out the other thread.