+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 129 to 136 of 136

  1. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: conservapedia.com

    Quote Originally Posted by noagenda View Post
    Ive stated it clearly "Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws". That is circular logic whether you accept it or not. You cannot PROVE it but you can support it. A theologian can do the same thing. Its supported by testimony and the more testimony lends credence to their position. It can only be buttressed by faith. But you can't PROVE it.
    And I'm saying you don't understand what "circular logic" means and therefore your statement holds no merit...

    Look up "circular logic" in a dictionary.

  2. #130

    Re: conservapedia.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
    And I'm saying you don't understand what "circular logic" means and therefore your statement holds no merit...

    Look up "circular logic" in a dictionary.
    First of most dictionaries wouldn't have a definition since its 2 separate words. However most encyclopedias would define it simply as an argument that restates itself. "Scientists use the laws of nature to prove the laws of nature." Actually I don't have a problem with it as it has lead to progress in the field.

  3. #131
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: conservapedia.com

    Quote Originally Posted by noagenda View Post
    First of most dictionaries wouldn't have a definition since its 2 separate words. However most encyclopedias would define it simply as an argument that restates itself. "Scientists use the laws of nature to prove the laws of nature." Actually I don't have a problem with it as it has lead to progress in the field.
    It's all semantics...

    "Scientists use the laws of nature to prove the laws of nature."

    Well, I don't agree...

    The statament implies a simplification of the scientific process that just doesn't hold water. It reduces the scientific process to something it isn't. Therefore I still regard it as a statement with no merit.

    Let us just agree to disagree on this. :spin2:

  4. #132
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: conservapedia.com

    Quote Originally Posted by PeggieSue View Post
    I read this and it helped me to understand your argument.


    https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/logic.htm
    Interesting article... and it doesn't actually say that science uses circular logic.

    It says that science makes theories and predictions, built on observation and experiments.

    Which is what I have been saying all along.
    Last edited by Kelderek; 01-13-2015 at 02:32 PM.

  5. #133

    Re: conservapedia.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
    It's all semantics...

    "Scientists use the laws of nature to prove the laws of nature."

    Well, I don't agree...

    The statament implies a simplification of the scientific process that just doesn't hold water. It reduces the scientific process to something it isn't. Therefore I still regard it as a statement with no merit.

    Let us just agree to disagree on this. :spin2:
    Yeah. We're just arguing in circles. Thanks for the exchange though.

  6. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: conservapedia.com

    Quote Originally Posted by PeggieSue View Post
    Yes

    The key word is logic when being used to explain science, it doesn't fit.
    Philosophers have tried to analyze science and how the Scientific Model works, it's merits and flaws, it's implications on philisophy and religion...

    Somewhere in that process, it's easy to lose grip on reality and reduce it all to semantic mind games and a clever play with words.

    The article borders on that, but it's nevertheless interesting.

    The English philosopher David Hume had some interesting "mind games" going on where he argued that nothing actually existed but himself.
    Since he couldn't actually prove the existance of anything but with his own senses, he couldn't really claim that anything existed. Only himself, since only he had his senses...

    Trying to dismiss the science by claiming that "it uses the Laws of Nature to prove the Laws of Nature" is kindof the same reasoning... it reduces science to something it isn't and therefore it's just a clever play with words. It's an oversimplification.
    Just as Hume's opinion on his own existance.

  7. #135

    Re: conservapedia.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
    Philosophers have tried to analyze science and how the Scientific Model works, it's merits and flaws, it's implications on philisophy and religion...

    Somewhere in that process, it's easy to lose grip on reality and reduce it all to semantic mind games and a clever play with words.

    The article borders on that, but it's nevertheless interesting.

    The English philosopher David Hume had some interesting "mind games" going on where he argued that nothing actually existed but himself.
    Since he couldn't actually prove the existance of anything but with his own senses, he couldn't really claim that anything existed. Only himself, since only he had his senses...

    Trying to dismiss the science by claiming that "it uses the Laws of Nature to prove the Laws of Nature" is kindof the same reasoning... it reduces science to something it isn't and therefore it's just a clever play with words. It's an oversimplification.
    Just as Hume's opinion on his own existance.
    Hume also asserted that inductive reasoning is circular. That is, induction uses outcomes from the past to predict outcomes for the future.

  8. #136
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: conservapedia.com

    Quote Originally Posted by noagenda View Post
    Hume also asserted that inductive reasoning is circular. That is, induction uses outcomes from the past to predict outcomes for the future.
    Yep, with just as much merit as his assumptions on his own existance.

    But it's a fun brain exercise.
    Theoretical philosophy often is. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's practical to apply it to the real world... :-)

Similar Threads

  1. Conservapedia
    By ianmatthews in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-02-2007, 01:07 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •