Skip to comments.
Logical Fallacies, Formal and Informal
The Autonomist ^
| March, 2003
| Reginald Firehammer
Posted on 04/06/2003 10:12:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840, 841-860, 861-880, 881-892 next last
To: LogicWings
Thanks for the link to the Hubble article.
To: cornelis
Briefly and in sum: Popper's book is a scandal without extenuating circumstances; in its intellectual attitude it is the typical product of a failed intellectual; spiritually one would have to use expressions like rascally, impertinent, loutish; in terms of technical competence, as a piece in the history of thought, it is dilettantish, and as a result is worthless. Wow!
862
posted on
05/12/2003 8:43:19 AM PDT
by
A. Pole
To: A. Pole
At least Locke seems to know what he's doing!
To: Hank Kerchief
Science is blind and impotent when it comes to proving the supernatural.
864
posted on
05/12/2003 8:47:44 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
To: biblewonk
Science is blind and impotent when it comes to proving the supernatural. So, what you're saying is, belief in the supernatural is unscientific. And since the supernatural cannot be proved by reason or logic, either, belief in thesupernatural is also irrational and illogical.
I guess I agree with you!
Hank
To: Hank Kerchief
So, what you're saying is, belief in the supernatural is unscientific. And since the supernatural cannot be proved by reason or logic, either, belief in thesupernatural is also irrational and illogical. No, I'm saying that proving and understanding all that is going on in creation with science only is like trying to see i-red, x-rays, radio waves, and gamma rays with a cheap inport 4 inch refractor telescope.
866
posted on
05/12/2003 10:00:21 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
To: biblewonk
No, I'm saying that proving and understanding all that is going on in creation with science only ... I see. So what is the better method for proving and understanding all that is going on? If not science, then what method would you use?
Hank
To: Hank Kerchief
I see. So what is the better method for proving and understanding all that is going on? If not science, then what method would you use? That's kind of a problem isn't it. We live in a natural universe that is paralleled by a spiritual universe which, by definition, is not tangible to the natural universe. You have a spirit but that lowest level of spiritual science can't be proven. So you either have to believe the invisible, IE all that is in the bible, or reject it. There is no immediate consequence on earth for rejecting it but there is later.
868
posted on
05/12/2003 10:09:53 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
To: biblewonk
Science is blind and impotent when it comes to proving the supernatural.And dogma is immune to reason.
869
posted on
05/12/2003 10:14:23 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: tacticalogic
And dogma is immune to reason. Reason, yeah that's powerful. What would reason say about Adam 1 minute after he was created?
870
posted on
05/12/2003 10:16:25 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
To: biblewonk
Nothing. Dogma is immune to reason, so applying reason to it is futile - it will not produce coherent results.
871
posted on
05/12/2003 10:21:59 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: tacticalogic
Nothing. Dogma is immune to reason, so applying reason to it is futile - it will not produce coherent results. Play on words. Reason is tied to the natural therefore it rephrases what I said in the first place.
872
posted on
05/12/2003 10:27:04 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
To: biblewonk
I'm agreeing with you. If science, and the logic it is based on cannot prove or disprove the supernatural, then belief in it must be divorced from logic. Dogma is, by definition, immune to reason. You either believe it or you don't, but you cannot test it.
873
posted on
05/12/2003 10:37:15 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: tacticalogic
You either believe it or you don't, but you cannot test it. Yes, by definition.
874
posted on
05/12/2003 10:38:58 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
To: tacticalogic
Where man screws up is when he thinks he is working with a good set of tools therefore he thinks his conclusions about what he can't prove are valid. When you are limited to the optical part of the spectrum you are missing out a lot of the happenings in the astronomical universe, to analagize.
875
posted on
05/12/2003 10:40:53 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
To: biblewonk
>
You either believe it or you don't, but you cannot test it.
Yes, by definition. Of course, disbelief is a belief unto itself.
I can only imagine what it was like for Paul among the Greeks since they, too, were so knowledgeable.
876
posted on
05/12/2003 10:45:45 AM PDT
by
newgeezer
(fundamentalist, regarding the Constitution AND the Holy Bible)
To: biblewonk
What is your point? If science is blind and impotent when it comes to proving the supernatural, then the supernatural is non sequitur in a discussion of logical fallacies. The discussion of the application of logic is only valid within the parameters that can be applied.
877
posted on
05/12/2003 10:49:34 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: newgeezer
I can only imagine what it was like for Paul among the Greeks since they, too, were so knowledgeable. He was loathe to discuss or try and persuade them with reason. He said reason makes the Word of no effect. Or something like that.
878
posted on
05/12/2003 10:50:28 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
To: tacticalogic
What is your point? If science is blind and impotent when it comes to proving the supernatural, then the supernatural is non sequitur in a discussion of logical fallacies. The discussion of the application of logic is only valid within the parameters that can be applied. "scientific method" is one of the first things mentioned in the article.
879
posted on
05/12/2003 10:53:28 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
To: biblewonk
"scientific method" is one of the first things mentioned in the article.Yes it is. Where is "supernatural" found?
880
posted on
05/12/2003 10:55:58 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840, 841-860, 861-880, 881-892 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson