tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post6948477784703067632..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Are science and religion incompatible?Martin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-12208097951955030422011-10-24T04:20:12.459-04:002011-10-24T04:20:12.459-04:00'a new religious claim testable by faith, meet...'a new religious claim <i>testable by faith</i>, meeting all Enlightenment, <i>evidential</i> criteria now exists.'<br /><br />And now:<br /><br />How to contradict yourself in one sentence.Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-44261190952979591792011-10-23T14:47:40.027-04:002011-10-23T14:47:40.027-04:00While it appears that the science vs religion deba...While it appears that the science vs religion debate will run and run, there appears to be a massive roadblock not far up the road and both religious and atheist are heading for a crash!<br /><br />The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is spreading on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new 'claim&goliahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484401523720233875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-33588663716357824392011-10-19T13:40:03.659-04:002011-10-19T13:40:03.659-04:00Martin,
'So you've never heard of "i...Martin,<br /><br />'So you've never heard of "inference to the best explanation," also known as "abduction," commonly used as a means of forming hypotheses as a part of the logic of discovery?'<br /><br />So now you suddenly decide you want to talk about hypotheses? Funny, I could have sworn we were talking about explanations and premises a moment ago. <br /><br />Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-41642787101359016642011-10-19T11:59:40.356-04:002011-10-19T11:59:40.356-04:00Singring,
So you've never heard of "infe...Singring,<br /><br />So you've never heard of "inference to the best explanation," also known as "abduction," commonly used as a means of forming hypotheses as a part of the logic of discovery?<br /><br />Never heard of C.S. Pierce?<br /><br />How about Newton, Galileo, and Kepler, all of whom used it extensively.<br /><br />Ever heard of the term "Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-23106988048933716122011-10-19T11:11:49.598-04:002011-10-19T11:11:49.598-04:00'Inference from the best explanation. That'...'Inference from the best explanation. That's what.'<br /><br />The best explanation for what? What is it you are trying to explain.<br /><br />'Inference from the best explanation is simply inferring something from the fact that it explains a truth better than any alternative explanations. It's used in science frequently.'<br /><br />So you are inferring the truth of a Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-79504122300807501642011-10-19T10:46:09.871-04:002011-10-19T10:46:09.871-04:00Singring,
I say "inference from the best exp...Singring,<br /><br />I say "inference from the best explanation" and you say "inference from what?"<br /><br />Inference from the best explanation. That's what.<br /><br />Inference from the best explanation is simply inferring something from the fact that it explains a truth better than any alternative explanations. It's used in science frequently.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-86061674608578895372011-10-18T19:24:21.207-04:002011-10-18T19:24:21.207-04:00Martin Cothran said...
Is the statement, "Pro...Martin Cothran said...<br /><i>Is the statement, "Proofs for the existence of God must either be based on evidence or be the product of personal beliefs" based on evidence or is it the product of your personal belief?</i><br /><br />Neither. Why would this question be relevant? Do you think "Proofs for the existence of God must either be based on evidence or be the product of One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-57639146531210847612011-10-18T14:54:54.229-04:002011-10-18T14:54:54.229-04:00'So you are asserting that my statement "...'So you are asserting that my statement "And premises are true if the prior argument in which it served as the conclusion is itself sound" is inconsistent with the belief that there are some terminating premises, which we could call "first principles" or perhaps "axioms"?'<br /><br />No. That's why I said:<br /><br />'(as you now <i>seem</i> to Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-12781741099665280262011-10-18T12:59:48.958-04:002011-10-18T12:59:48.958-04:00Singring,
how do you know that the idea of actual...Singring,<br /><br /><i>how do you know that the idea of actuality and potentiality is true</i><br /><br />Inference to the best explanation.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-23562332260761236172011-10-18T12:43:56.514-04:002011-10-18T12:43:56.514-04:00Singring,
So you are asserting that my statement ...Singring,<br /><br />So you are asserting that my statement "And premises are true if the prior argument in which it served as the conclusion is itself sound" is inconsistent with the belief that there are some terminating premises, which we could call "first principles" or perhaps "axioms"?<br /><br />The premises have to either be conclusions of prior arguments Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-59497123229719247572011-10-18T12:40:55.868-04:002011-10-18T12:40:55.868-04:00'Where did I say they were "regressable a...'Where did I say they were "regressable ad infinitum"? That's your statement. Is it the conclusion of a sound argument? If so, what is it?'<br /><br />Right here:<br /><br />'And premises are true if the prior argument in which it served as the conclusion is itself sound.'<br /><br />If you want to claim that this does not mean that premises regress ad infinitum , Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-82444746848226696322011-10-18T12:24:06.578-04:002011-10-18T12:24:06.578-04:00Singring,
Where did I say they were "regress...Singring,<br /><br />Where did I say they were "regressable ad infinitum"? That's your statement. Is it the conclusion of a sound argument? If so, what is it?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-30132159880994025882011-10-18T12:23:51.031-04:002011-10-18T12:23:51.031-04:00Singring,
'An argument is sound if it is vali...Singring,<br /><br /><i>'An argument is sound if it is valid and if the premises are true.'<br /><br />Restating your assertions does not make them true.</i><br /><br />So you are disputing that this is the logical definition of soundness?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-77958395131611657562011-10-18T12:19:43.466-04:002011-10-18T12:19:43.466-04:00'An argument is sound if it is valid and if th...'An argument is sound if it is valid and if the premises are true.'<br /><br />Restating your assertions does not make them true. I have asked you how we know that premises are true. This is your latest attempt at explaining: <br /><br />'And premises are true if the prior argument in which it served as the conclusion is itself sound.'<br /><br />So how do we know that the Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-84105384639747938142011-10-18T11:26:57.571-04:002011-10-18T11:26:57.571-04:00Singring,
Where did you get that idea?
An argum...Singring,<br /><br />Where did you get that idea? <br /><br />An argument is sound <i>if it is valid and if the premises are true</i>. That is standard introductory logic. And premises are true if the prior argument in which it served as the conclusion is itself sound. <br /><br />It could even be true if the argument was unsound, by the way, so maybe the better thing to say is it is <i>justifiedMartin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-14864530649139833532011-10-18T11:17:32.709-04:002011-10-18T11:17:32.709-04:00'Premises are neither valid nor invalid. Their...'Premises are neither valid nor invalid. Their truth is determined on the basis of the soundness of whatever argument produced them.'<br /><br />So arguments are sound if their premises are true and premises are true if the arguments that produce them are sound?<br /><br />I don't think that requires any further comment.Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-58603724142913396572011-10-18T11:01:51.632-04:002011-10-18T11:01:51.632-04:00Singring:
So the million dollar question is: how ...Singring:<br /><br /><i>So the million dollar question is: how do we assess the validity of the premises?</i><br /><br />Premises are neither valid nor invalid. Their <i>truth</i> is determined on the basis of the soundness of whatever argument produced them.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-31199474980172931762011-10-18T10:59:54.671-04:002011-10-18T10:59:54.671-04:00OneBrow:
Is the statement, "Proofs for the e...OneBrow:<br /><br />Is the statement, "Proofs for the existence of God must either be based on evidence or be the product of personal beliefs" based on evidence or is it the product of your personal belief?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-18212297736349205512011-10-17T15:14:19.548-04:002011-10-17T15:14:19.548-04:00'When the premises are true.'
Exactly. So...'When the premises are true.'<br /><br />Exactly. So the million dollar question is: how do we assess the validity of the premises? After all, anyone can come up with his favourite set of premises. No special expertise required.<br /><br />Take for example the metaphysical idea of actuality and potentiality that Thomists like yourself use as premises to prove the existence of a Prime Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-47710911066725652712011-10-17T13:47:34.955-04:002011-10-17T13:47:34.955-04:00Singring,
How do we know a philosophical argument...Singring,<br /><br /><i>How do we know a philosophical argument is sound in addition to being valid?</i><br /><br />When the premises are true.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-12756523358202553982011-10-17T13:41:06.296-04:002011-10-17T13:41:06.296-04:00Martin Cothran said...
Is this supposed to be evid...Martin Cothran said...<br /><i>Is this supposed to be evidence that an axiom should not be accepted?</i><br /><br />No, what I was attempting to say is that philosophy generates no new truths. In particular, proofs for the existence of God, or certain theorems in mathematics, must either be based on evidence or be the product of personal beliefs. The axioms come from one or the other.<br /><brOne Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-7799832360243622792011-10-17T13:37:18.176-04:002011-10-17T13:37:18.176-04:00'By assenting to conclusions of sound argument...'By assenting to conclusions of sound arguments.'<br /><br />That was not the question. Assenting to a conclusion simply means that we...assent to a conlusion. It doesn't mean the conclusion is true.<br /> <br />How do we know a philosophical argument is sound in addition to being valid?Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-20140819118408011612011-10-17T13:29:04.117-04:002011-10-17T13:29:04.117-04:00One Brow:
However, sound axioms can only come fro...One Brow:<br /><br /><i>However, sound axioms can only come from emipirical notions or from personal beliefs.</i><br /><br />Is this supposed to be evidence that an axiom should not be accepted?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-23366423403956441182011-10-17T13:27:11.792-04:002011-10-17T13:27:11.792-04:00Singring,
And how do we know that philosophical c...Singring,<br /><br /><i>And how do we know that philosophical conclusion A about God X is true?</i><br /><br />By assenting to conclusions of sound arguments.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-44496669207001110982011-10-17T09:38:16.994-04:002011-10-17T09:38:16.994-04:00The traditional proofs for the existence of God (o...<i>The traditional proofs for the existence of God (or for that matter certain theorems in mathematics) are rational, but not "evidence-led," at least in the sense of being empirically testable.</i><br /><br />This is part of what makes them potentially irrelevant. The soundness of a philosophical argument depends upon the soundness of the axioms and the method of deduciton. However, One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.com