Jump to content


Photo

Scientific Certainty?


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 17 February 2012 - 09:42 PM

Is scientific certainty an oxymoron?
Can we trust that scientists will have pure motives?
Can we trust that scientists will not have bias?
Can we trust that scientists will not make random errors?
If not, then why do we exalt their work so highly?
How easy is it for them to detect errors in their own work?
How easy is it for others to detect errors in their work?
Do peers always review free from bias, on a good night's sleep?
How many times do other scientists closely re-investigate one scientist's work when the outcome of an experiment seems to be correct?
Scientific truth is supposed to become more certain if it is repeatable, but isn't it human nature to try to do something new, rather than confirm something that you already agree with anyway?
Don't scientists learn from what others have learned before them, and being taught the same methods and procedures? If these methods and procedures are flawed, how long can they go uncorrected?
Do scientists not ever get tired, overworked, stressed, and miss details or draw premature conclusions?

Why shouldn't we encourage a diverse range of scientific bias?
Why shouldn't we question the very foundations, methods, and procedures?
Do we have so much certainty in our scientific knowledge that it can't be turned on it's head with one discovery, one new fossil?
Can't a hoax be printed in a peer-reviewed journal? Why shouldn't we be skeptical of new data?

Isn't the whole point of science to not ever fully trust science?

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:16 AM

Yes and No:


Yes we can believe in the fact of the apodictic certitude of science. For example, "scientific laws" are "self-evident". If they were not, then "scientific certainty" could be rendered an oxymoron. But, because they are, it is not. This is but ONE basic example that ABSOLUTELY proves the point. There are many others.

No, we cannot simply TRUST the word of a scientist. Why, because ALL scientists are HUMAN, and are therefore capable of bias, error, (etc...), But we DO have their work, and can therefore check their work for TRUTH and accuracy (but mostly truth). And we can usually find truth or fallacy at the very first hypotheses they posit (this is where you can usually find their biases).

Yes, science, when performed via the empirical scientific method will either "Prove" or "Disprove" any hypothesis, model or theory. That is actually what science does. Anyone who tells you different is simply trying to sell you something.

#3 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:38 AM

but sciencies doesnt prove anything, thats what the evolutionists teach.

#4 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:40 AM

Is scientific certainty an oxymoron?


It depends on what you mean by "certainty". If you mean "absolute certainty" then it is very much an oxymoron. Aside from various problems of scientists being human, even if all scientists were perfect knowledge-seekers they still wouldn't have absolute certainty... simply because science is always discovering new things and changing and refining its theories in light of new evidence. While this does NOT mean that all science is worthless (on this one I always refer people to Asimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong", because it explains very well how new scientific discoveries don't overturn all that came before, they just add levels of precision), it does mean that if one is after absolute certainty, science isn't the place to look.

If you don't mean "absolute certainty", but a more common, "I'm certain my keys are in the drawer" kind of sense, then it's not an oxymoron no. And the nice thing about scientific certainty compared to everyday certainty, is that it's better quantified. With the statistical tools we have now scientists put a lot of effort into not only finding things out, but finding out how certain they are of that thing they found out, using things like "confidence intervals", "p-values", levels of statistical significance and so on.

As for scientists being human :

Can we trust that scientists will have pure motives?
Can we trust that scientists will not have bias?
Can we trust that scientists will not make random errors?

No... and we don't. There are many scientists, and they don't all get along, and they don't all agree, and they don't all have the same biases by and large... so when corrupt biased scientists make random errors they get corrected. When they don't it's usually that nobody else was interested in what they did, so the errors aren't very far-reaching.

If not, then why do we exalt their work so highly?

Because science gets results.

How easy is it for them to detect errors in their own work? --> depends on the error
How easy is it for others to detect errors in their work? --> depends on the error
Do peers always review free from bias, on a good night's sleep? --> haha, of course not. That's why there are many reviewers. And even then they often let bad papers through. If the paper is interesting, other scientists will look into it and that's when it will turn out it was a bad paper. And that will reflect badly on everyone involved. Either way the errors will eventually be found - the more interesting and important the subject, the faster.
How many times do other scientists closely re-investigate one scientist's work when the outcome of an experiment seems to be correct? --> Depends; again if it's interesting or important or contentious it will be reproduced more often. But note that re-investigating isn't the only point at which a fundamental error in the paper can be found : if there's something very wrong with the first paper, people who use it as the basis for their own work will run into problems which will likely lead them to re-investigate said paper as well. (again there's a clear bias towards interesting and important papers getting more scrutiny, because if nobody bases their work on said paper then errors are more likely to go unnoticed)
Scientific truth is supposed to become more certain if it is repeatable, but isn't it human nature to try to do something new, rather than confirm something that you already agree with anyway? --> Yes. But there are many scientists, and they don't all agree.
Don't scientists learn from what others have learned before them, and being taught the same methods and procedures? If these methods and procedures are flawed, how long can they go uncorrected? --> Flawed methods and procedures get bad results. That will eventually get noticed. This depends a lot on the field though.
Do scientists not ever get tired, overworked, stressed, and miss details or draw premature conclusions? --> All the time I'd expect.


Why shouldn't we encourage a diverse range of scientific bias? --> Interesting word choice...
Why shouldn't we question the very foundations, methods, and procedures? --> Question away.
Do we have so much certainty in our scientific knowledge that it can't be turned on it's head with one discovery, one new fossil? --> Depends on which piece of scientific knowledge we're talking about. In general, the more certain scientists are of a given factoid, the more evidence it requires to be "turned on its head". As is appropriate, given the fallibility of scientists it's unwise to rule out human error. And overturning a very well-supported theory over one single discovery or experiment (looking at you, neutrinos :)) without verrrry rigorous checking of that discovery is basically forgetting that the scientists making that discovery could very well have made a random error, or have been biased, or maybe they were overworked and stressed and jumped to conclusions.
Can't a hoax be printed in a peer-reviewed journal? Why shouldn't we be skeptical of new data? --> They can and have. Although the Sokhal hoax was in a philosophy or social science paper IIRC. And we should.
  • Peter likes this

#5 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 19 February 2012 - 10:44 AM

If its biased science then saying "science gets results" is kind of irrational. Biased results are not results because they push you further from reaching the truth of the matter. By selecting evidence out of biased and coming to conclusions through the same biased completely destroys the fundamentals of what science is truely supposed to be.

#6 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 19 February 2012 - 02:20 PM

1) Is scientific certainty an oxymoron?
2) Can we trust that scientists will have pure motives?
3) Can we trust that scientists will not have bias?
4) Can we trust that scientists will not make random errors?
5) If not, then why do we exalt their work so highly?
6) How easy is it for them to detect errors in their own work?
7) How easy is it for others to detect errors in their work?
8) Do peers always review free from bias, on a good night's sleep?
9) How many times do other scientists closely re-investigate one scientist's work when the outcome of an experiment seems to be correct?
10) Scientific truth is supposed to become more certain if it is repeatable, but isn't it human nature to try to do something new, rather than confirm something that you already agree with anyway?
11) Don't scientists learn from what others have learned before them, and being taught the same methods and procedures? If these methods and procedures are flawed, how long can they go uncorrected?
12) Do scientists not ever get tired, overworked, stressed, and miss details or draw premature conclusions?

13) Why shouldn't we encourage a diverse range of scientific bias?
14) Why shouldn't we question the very foundations, methods, and procedures?
15) Do we have so much certainty in our scientific knowledge that it can't be turned on it's head with one discovery, one new fossil?
16) Can't a hoax be printed in a peer-reviewed journal? Why shouldn't we be skeptical of new data?

17) Isn't the whole point of science to not ever fully trust science?


1) Scientific certainty isn't an oxymoron. Ofcourse you need to know what is meant by scientific certainty to understand this. Same goes for scientific fact. Just like scientific theory and scientific hypothesis, these terms aren't equal to their terms without the keyword 'scientific' but scientists do use them w/o that keyword because they know that it is implied.

2 + 3 + 4) No, of course not. Neither does science encourage you to trust your fellow scientists but rather to verify their work and actually doubt it, and test its compatibility with current scientific knowledge.

5) You're on a computer, having lots of food in your house, water to drink and you aren't dead at the age of 25 to name a few reasons.

6 + 7) That's a tough question. Some errors are found pretty easily: you predict something, and you get different results. So it is evident that errors were made. Either the hypothesis/theory is wrong, the setup is wrong, you didn't test correctly, the conditions under which you were testing are wrong... "Wrong" results can have very different reasons. On other occasions, it can be very hard to detect erros because for instance you do not have the technology to verify it for instance w/o knowing this.

8) Nope, or at least you shouldn't count on it.

9) That really depends on what is being done.

10) Don't forget what science actually is: knowledge. Often that knowledge will be used in other experiments as well, or that knowledge will be applied to create consumer products for instance. It is not because something is accepted, and that we do not test it directly, that possible errors won't be detected.

11) If methods or procedures are flawed, I presume that it will produce wrong results in a certain range of experiments. If that range is very broad, the procedures and methods will be discarded pretty fast I guess, if they are only wrong in a small range, I guess that it will take a lot longer to detect them. The question really is: if they provide good results for a range of experiments, are they actually wrong?

12) Can't you answer these types of answers by yourself?

13) If by scientific bias you mean let all people from all over the world, with all kinds of different backgrounds, cultures, etc take part in science, then yes ofcourse. If you actually want people to be biased while doing science, then no.

14) If you have good reasons to do so, then I don't see any reason not to do so.

15) New facts can have great consequences to certain fields of science. Take for instance the results at CERN that measured particles moving faster than light. Science is based upon probabilities and on removing uncertainty. Scientific knowledge isn't absolute truth.

16) We should be sceptical of new data. That's why CERN asked a neutral research team to repeat the experiment for the faster then light particle. Is there any reason why you think that we aren't sceptical?

17) Imo the whole point of science is to gain better knowledge of the natural world in order to improve our lives, to guarantee our future and to satisfy our curiosity to name a few reasons. We should trust science as it does provide us with useful knowledge. On the other hand, we should be sceptical about the results of science and not see it as absolute truth or as the final answer.

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 March 2012 - 02:49 PM

It depends on what you mean by "certainty". If you mean "absolute certainty" then it is very much an oxymoron.


Are you "absolutly certain"?

#8 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 19 May 2012 - 01:53 PM

It depends on what you mean by "certainty". If you mean "absolute certainty" then it is very much an oxymoron. Aside from various problems of scientists being human, even if all scientists were perfect knowledge-seekers they still wouldn't have absolute certainty...

Hope you don't get offended
But if you think we can't know anything absolutely... then look up the definition of a fool...
http://dictionary.re...com/browse/fool
Everyone has a worldview... I choose to 'believe' that Truth is knowable...
Do you believe the same? Maybe don't answer I don't want to waste your time if I am... knowledge come's from a mind... (Source Information Science and In the beginning was information by Dr. Gitt)

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 May 2012 - 02:52 PM


It depends on what you mean by "certainty". If you mean "absolute certainty" then it is very much an oxymoron.


Are you "absolutly certain"?


That's kind of what I figured.... The only "absolute certainty" in post number 4 is the uncertainty of that claim.

#10 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 02 June 2012 - 05:40 AM

Are you "absolutly certain"?

Nope. If nothing else I could be having a stroke and thinking I'm making sense when I'm not. But I'm quite certain. Certain enough to post it as a response to someone on the internet.

#11 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 02 June 2012 - 11:34 AM

Nope. If nothing else I could be having a stroke and thinking I'm making sense when I'm not. But I'm quite certain. Certain enough to post it as a response to someone on the internet.

Where does that lead? Not knowing, being undescisive? How can we be truly wise?

We can choose to trust Jesus; Jesus is the way, the truth, the life... there is a reality prime...

#12 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2012 - 11:40 AM




It depends on what you mean by "certainty". If you mean "absolute certainty" then it is very much an oxymoron.


Are you "absolutely certain"?


Nope.


Then your statement is ‘very much’ self-defeating because you made an absolute statement about absolute certainty that you are not absolutely certain about.

Further, the words ‘absolute’ and ‘certitude’ are far closer to being synonymous than they would be oxymoronic…

#13 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 02 June 2012 - 12:03 PM

Where does that lead? Not knowing, being undescisive?

How so ? We make decisions in situations where we aren't absolutely certain all the time. Whether we do it by "faith", or by "weighing the pros and cons", or "Bayesian reasoning", or "gut feeling", we do it.

In fact abandoning "absolute certainty" and replacing it with "level of confidence" can make decision-making easier, because instead of having to choose between being absolutely certain and knowing nothing, you can say "I'm 99.9999% confident of this" (i.e. if I were to make a million different statements that I'm as confident in as I am in this, I expect I'd only be wrong once - that's actually an unrealistically high level of confidence, a million is a big number), or "I'm 99% confident of this" (which is close enough to certain for everyday purposes), or "I'm 60% confident of this" (i.e. I think it's probably true but I could easily be convinced otherwise), and thus base your decisions on how confident you are of something.

#14 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2012 - 01:58 PM



Where does that lead? Not knowing, being undescisive?



How so ?


How so? We'll see you provide 'how so' below…


We make decisions in situations where we aren't absolutely certain all the time.


That is a fact, but we make decisions in situations where we ARE absolutely certain all the time as well.


Whether we do it by "faith", or by "weighing the pros and cons", or "Bayesian reasoning", or "gut feeling", we do it.


Yep… But when we know absolute truth, we know it for a fact; just as we can know things with absolute certitude.


In fact abandoning "absolute certainty" and replacing it with "level of confidence" can make decision-making easier,


Ahhh, and here’s where you get stuck in the indecisiveness that Rico was speaking of. The only reason to “abandon” absolute certainty, is so you can attempt to pretend it doesn’t exist. But in doing so you have to deny one of the first principles of logic… The Law of Non-contradiction! Good luck with that.


because instead of having to choose between being absolutely certain and knowing nothing, you can say "I'm 99.9999% confident of this" (i.e. if I were to make a million different statements that I'm as confident in as I am in this, I expect I'd only be wrong once - that's actually an unrealistically high level of confidence, a million is a big number), or "I'm 99% confident of this" (which is close enough to certain for everyday purposes), or "I'm 60% confident of this" (i.e. I think it's probably true but I could easily be convinced otherwise), and thus base your decisions on how confident you are of something.


That would be true if there were no such thing as absolutes, and absolute certitude, but it is fallacious at it’s base because there ARE absolutes and Absolute Truth/certitude. Further, it can be true in the cases of phenomena that are not absolute because there are phenomena that we are NOT absolutely sure about.

#15 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 02 June 2012 - 03:30 PM

Aelyn, where do laws come from, such as laws of logic?
What exists in your worldview -- do you? Can you see how it's self defeating? This is why I 'choose' to 'believe' that if 'I AM' (name for God), then I exist, rewriting what René Descartes said. Hope you have a good weekend.

How so? We'll see you provide 'how so' below…


That is a fact, but we make decisions in situations where we ARE absolutely certain all the time as well.


Yep… But when we know absolute truth, we know it for a fact; just as we can know things with absolute certitude.


Ahhh, and here’s where you get stuck in the indecisiveness that Rico was speaking of. The only reason to “abandon” absolute certainty, is so you can attempt to pretend it doesn’t exist. But in doing so you have to deny one of the first principles of logic… The Law of Non-contradiction! Good luck with that.


That would be true if there were no such thing as absolutes, and absolute certitude, but it is fallacious at it’s base because there ARE absolutes and Absolute Truth/certitude. Further, it can be true in the cases of phenomena that are not absolute because there are phenomena that we are NOT absolutely sure about.



#16 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 02 June 2012 - 03:51 PM

Aelyn, where do laws come from, such as laws of logic?

Same place you think God comes from I suppose.

What exists in your worldview -- do you? Can you see how it's self defeating? This is why I 'choose' to 'believe' that if 'I AM' (name for God), then I exist, rewriting what René Descartes said.

I still don't see how it's self-defeating, sorry. You of course can choose to believe what you like.

Hope you have a good weekend.

Thanks :)

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2012 - 04:14 PM



Aelyn, where do laws come from, such as laws of logic?


Same place you think God comes from I suppose.


Is that supposed to be a cogent answer? Rico asked you a simple question; don’t you think a civil reply is in order?



What exists in your worldview -- do you? Can you see how it's self defeating? This is why I 'choose' to 'believe' that if 'I AM' (name for God), then I exist, rewriting what René Descartes said.


I still don't see how it's self-defeating, sorry.


Post # 12 gave you a succinct answer as to why your statement IS self-defeating. If you refuse to see absoluteness of it, I suppose you can believe what you wish to have faith in.

#18 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 02 June 2012 - 04:30 PM

Is that supposed to be a cogent answer? Rico asked you a simple question; don’t you think a civil reply is in order?

Some things have to be uncaused. If only causality itself. Christians think God is uncaused. I don't know if the laws of logic are uncaused but I don't see why they couldn't be. Thus, my answer for "where do the laws of logic come from" is pretty much the same as the Christian answer to "where does God come from". I'm sorry you thought that was uncivil, it wasn't my intention.

Post # 12 gave you a succinct answer as to why your statement IS self-defeating.


You mean this one ? "you made an absolute statement about absolute certainty that you are not absolutely certain about."
I explicitly stated I wasn't absolutely certain about the statement I made, so ipso facto it isn't an absolute statement. I don't make any absolute statements; I don't add caveats to every single one of my statements saying so because that would be tiresome, but you can assume they're implicitly there.
I am not absolutely sure there is not such thing as absolute certainty. I am as certain about it as I can be of anything, but that certainty isn't absolute. The only way I can see this being self-defeating is if we assume I should be absolutely certain about something... but as I don't make that assumption, I'm not seeing it. I could of course be convinced otherwise :) but I'm afraid bare assertion won't help.

If you refuse to see absoluteness of it, I suppose you can believe what you wish to have faith in.

Thanks. Although I prefer to believe what I have evidence for and makes sense.

#19 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 June 2012 - 05:23 PM



Is that supposed to be a cogent answer? Rico asked you a simple question; don’t you think a civil reply is in order?


Some things have to be uncaused. If only causality itself. Christians think God is uncaused. I don't know if the laws of logic are uncaused but I don't see why they couldn't be. Thus, my answer for "where do the laws of logic come from" is pretty much the same as the Christian answer to "where does God come from". I'm sorry you thought that was uncivil, it wasn't my intention.



It was uncivil because your statement retains no logic or rationale.

First – The statement “some things have to be uncaused, itself has no basis if you don’t provide what these “uncaused things” are, and provide how they can logically, rationally and scientifically be uncaused!

Second – The Laws of logic, by definition cannot be uncaused. A “Law” begs for a “Law Giver”.

Third – God, the Initial Causer/Causation (etc…) CAN logically be uncaused. And the logic is sound!

Being Is ( B is ) = The Principle of Existence
Being Is Being ( B is B ) = The Principle of Identity
Being Is Not Nonbeing ( B is Not Non-B ) = The Principle of Non-contradiction
Either Being or Nonbeing ( Either B or Non-B ) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle
Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being ( Non-B > B ) = The Principle of Causality
Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being ( Bc > Bc ) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency).
Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being ( Bn → Bc ) = The Positive Principle of Modality.
Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being ( Bn > Bn ) = The Negative Principle of Modality.
Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being ( Bn → Bc ) = The Principle of Existential Causality.
Necessary Being exists = The Principle of Existential Necessity ( Bn exists).
Contingent being exists = The Principle of Existential Contingency ( Bc exists).
Necessary Being is similar to similar contingent being(s) it causes = The Principle of Analogy ( Bn — similar → Bc ).

The Necessary Being = God, the Initial Causer/Causation (etc…)
The Contingent Being = Us

Fourth – The “were does God come from” analogy fails as a non sequitur because “where did the Laws of Logic come from” is answered “from a Law Giver”. But God, the Initial Causer/Causation (etc…) is a Necessary Being and doesn’t require causation.

Here we will also debunk a common atheistic misunderstanding of the “Principle of Causality” you attempted. The Principle of Causality does not claim that “Everything has a cause.” The famous agnostic Bertrand Russell made this error in his book “Why I am not a Christian”. He argued as follows:
1- If everything needs a cause, then so does God.
2- If everything does not need a cause, then neither does the world.
But in either case, we need not conclude there is a First Cause of the world.

The problem with Russell’s assertion (and yours) is the claim: “Everything has a cause”. BUT the argument is actually: “Everything that begins has a cause.” (As my syllogism points out).



Post # 12 gave you a succinct answer as to why your statement IS self-defeating.


You mean this one ? "you made an absolute statement about absolute certainty that you are not absolutely certain about."
I explicitly stated I wasn't absolutely certain about the statement I made, so ipso facto it isn't an absolute statement. I don't make any absolute statements; I don't add caveats to every single one of my statements saying so because that would be tiresome, but you can assume they're implicitly there.
I am not absolutely sure there is not such thing as absolute certainty. I am as certain about it as I can be of anything, but that certainty isn't absolute. The only way I can see this being self-defeating is if we assume I should be absolutely certain about something... but as I don't make that assumption, I'm not seeing it. I could of course be convinced otherwise but I'm afraid bare assertion won't help.



As I pointed out; it doesn’t matter that you LATER claimed that you weren’t “absolutely certain about the statement” you made, because the initial statement itself is an “ABSOLUTE” statement; and was therefore self-defeating”. Therefore, any statement after that is easily exposed as either illogical OR side-stepping the illogic. You were basically trapped by your own illogical fallaciousness.

Further – If you were actually honest with us and yourself, you would easily be able to admit that there are in fact “Absolutely Certain” facts AND “absolutely True” facts.



If you refuse to see absoluteness of it, I suppose you can believe what you wish to have faith in.


Thanks. Although I prefer to believe what I have evidence for and makes sense.


Then please, by all means, provide your evidence that there is NO “Absolute Certitude”.

As an aside, I can (indeed) provide evidence for “Absolute Certitude”.

#20 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 04 June 2012 - 07:35 AM

It was uncivil because your statement retains no logic or rationale.

First – The statement “some things have to be uncaused, itself has no basis if you don’t provide what these “uncaused things” are, and provide how they can logically, rationally and scientifically be uncaused!

Second – The Laws of logic, by definition cannot be uncaused. A “Law” begs for a “Law Giver”.

Third – God, the Initial Causer/Causation (etc…) CAN logically be uncaused. And the logic is sound!

Being Is ( B is ) = The Principle of Existence
Being Is Being ( B is B ) = The Principle of Identity
Being Is Not Nonbeing ( B is Not Non-B ) = The Principle of Non-contradiction
Either Being or Nonbeing ( Either B or Non-B ) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle
Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being ( Non-B > B ) = The Principle of Causality
Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being ( Bc > Bc ) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency).
Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being ( Bn → Bc ) = The Positive Principle of Modality.
Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being ( Bn > Bn ) = The Negative Principle of Modality.
Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being ( Bn → Bc ) = The Principle of Existential Causality.
Necessary Being exists = The Principle of Existential Necessity ( Bn exists).
Contingent being exists = The Principle of Existential Contingency ( Bc exists).
Necessary Being is similar to similar contingent being(s) it causes = The Principle of Analogy ( Bn — similar → Bc ).

The Necessary Being = God, the Initial Causer/Causation (etc…)
The Contingent Being = Us

Fourth – The “were does God come from” analogy fails as a non sequitur because “where did the Laws of Logic come from” is answered “from a Law Giver”. But God, the Initial Causer/Causation (etc…) is a Necessary Being and doesn’t require causation.

There are a couple areas where this argument seems questionable. First I need to state that I had to look up necessary and contingent beings to see what you meant by them. I'm using "necessary being = that which can't not exist" and "contingent being = that which is possible to not exist". If your definitions are different please clarify so we are on the same page.

For these 4 statements, I can't see how they could be true and consistent when applied to humans or any other biological creature.
Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being ( Bc > Bc ) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency).
Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being ( Bn → Bc ) = The Positive Principle of Modality.
Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being ( Bn > Bn ) = The Negative Principle of Modality.
Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being ( Bn → Bc ) = The Principle of Existential Causality.

Is a child a necessary or contingent being? From the definitions above, a child could certainly not exist and is not required to exist, so I'd conclude that a child is a contingent being.
Is a child caused by it's parents? If yes, then parents are necessary beings according to your argument. If no, could you explain what you think the cause of a child is?
Are parents necessary or contingent? Since parents are themselves children of other parents, then by the definition of child they are contingent. But you have claimed that contingent beings can't create contingent beings, which means that if parents create children they'd need to be necessary beings. Do parents change from contingent to necessary as soon as they reproduce?
If I as a human am a contingent being, your definition appears to indicate I am incapable of causing/creating anything. And yet, I can certainly build new structures, create new ideas, make new people exist (with help from another person), etc.

The analogy argument doesn't seem to say anything.
Necessary Being is similar to similar contingent being(s) it causes
Saying that something is similar to similar things is a meaningless tautology. All you are saying is that 'A' is similar to things that are similar to 'A'. That's both true by definition and completely pointless. You could just as easily claim 'A' is the same color as things that are the same color as 'A'. It doesn't allow you to draw any conclusions about the necessary being or the contingent being since there's no requirement that there be any similar contingent beings and you'd still need to show that a necessary being and a contingent being were similar.

As for the idea that logic is a contingent being, are you saying it's possible for logic to not exist (from the definition of contingent I am using) and could you explain what that would entail? If it's possible for logic to not exist then in a non-logical universe couldn't Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being ( Non-B > B ) be false and logic therefore be able to create itself?

Here's an example of how logic could create itself by not existing.
For simplicity let logic be that which results in A=A and A not equal to (not A).
If logic didn't exist, then it could be possible for A=(not A)
If A= "logic exists" and (not A) = "logic doesn't exist" then the state of logic not existing could be equivilant to the state of logic existing. i.e. (not A) = A.
This would be indistinguishable from either logic creating itself or logic always existing, both options which you specifically reject as possible.
I'd argue that logic is something that must exist and should be considered a necessary being rather than contingent, but even as contingent, the above shows it's possible for logic to not need a creator.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users