Truth

[Zafran]

I would go along with the notion that Newtons laws are the best explanation we have. Now I can explain how by deduction we get these laws but you cannot (well not so far anyway) explain how they arise by induction. The point is that I can test these laws, anyone can test them and get the same results BUT we KNOW induction does not have that property. One cannot logically hold to the view that induction is only 'certain' in some cases and not others.

How do you KNOW that they will get the same results in the future - every test you do there is always a chance that it can still be wrong in the future regardless of Newton or Einstien doing the test - it is not absolute - so its a belief.

Please think about this and let me hear your answer. Einstein, in the early 1900s brought us amongst other things General and Special Relativity - can you explain how he did that using induction? This is a critical question if your arguments are correct and you don't need a degree in physics to answer it.

You dont get it do you - lets say you do the same thing that einstien did - Is it certian/absolute that it will work in the future ofcourse not - it worked the past but gives is zero certainty in the future - I'm waiting for you to admit that these laws do suffer from induction.

I have no problem in general with anyone claiming their scriptures are absolute but the issue is not what is claimed but what can be proved and I have yet to see a proof, a universal proof that ANY scripture is unequivocally the very word of God. If you wish to present one then do so.

Thats like denying the "proofs" of Newtons laws - we can give you millions of past tests but if the person does not see them as "proof" then its like talking to the flat earth society and arguing that the earth is round.

 

[Hugo]

How do you KNOW that they will get the same results in the future - every test you do there is always a chance that it can still be wrong in the future regardless of Newton or Einstien doing the test - it is not absolute - so its a belief.

The simple fact is that Newtons Laws may be falsified - meaning we have a test that every one agrees on and everyone can do at any time and this has been done and so unless you can create a test that shows otherwise the laws are true now and always will be.

You dont get it do you - lets say you do the same thing that einstien did - Is it certian/absolute that it will work in the future ofcourse not - it worked the past but gives is zero certainty in the future - I'm waiting for you to admit that these laws do suffer from induction.

Respectfully, its you that 'don't get it'. if one looks through your post you offer no argument just a statement of what you believe and you have been unable to explain deduction or how laws are formulated. If we now turn to Einstein and relativity then it is totally obvious that he could NOT have arrived at his theories by an inductive route - do you know why? Well its simple, induction relies on observation of past events and using them you can make inferences about future similar events which may turn out to be true or false. However, Einstein nor anyone else could have made any measurements or observations about curved space or time dilation so here we have pure deduction, he worked it all out without recourse to any data. In fact it would be another 11 years before anyone was able to test and verify his predictions.

That's like denying the "proofs" of Newtons laws - we can give you millions of past tests but if the person does not see them as "proof" then its like talking to the flat earth society and arguing that the earth is round.

ANYONE can bizarrely deny Newtons Laws, it makes no differences as the effects which those laws describe CANNOT be avoided no matter what you believe. In fact you are the one who denies them because you believe, without a shred of evidence, that they can change tomorrow so you essentially deny the proof. If someone (as a Saudi cleric did in 1977) declares the earth flat then I can tell him what to do to test it. In fact in the case of the Saudi cleric he was forced to withdraw his fatwa or face further ridicule when he saw a Saudi astronaut in the space station.

I will say it again when we have laws of nature that have been uncovered by deduction so they can be falsified - meaning we know how to test them. So for Newtons Laws of motion it does not matter if we tested them with a big car, a green car, a sports car, a bus, bulldozer, a bicycle they will always work.

Now if we turn briefly to the question of is the Qu'ran true then I do not know of a single test that is capable of universal falsification. Here I mean that the Qu'ran MUST be regarded as just a book, like any other book so whatever test you or I think of MUST be applicable to any book because we cannot automatically know that any book is or is not from God - we have to test them. So if you know of such a test then tell us about it?

 

[Zafran]

The simple fact is that Newtons Laws may be falsified - meaning we have a test that every one agrees on and everyone can do at any time and this has been done and so unless you can create a test that shows otherwise the laws are true now and always will be.

No they are not absolute - your "test" does not make Newtons law absolute as I have shown before from your own examples simply you saying it does not mean you are true or all these "people that agree with you" which frankly I have not met - your the first one to actually claim newtons laws are absolute.

Respectfully, its you that 'don't get it'. if one looks through your post you offer no argument just a statement of what you believe and you have been unable to explain deduction or how laws are formulated. If we now turn to Einstein and relativity then it is totally obvious that he could NOT have arrived at his theories by an inductive route - do you know why? Well its simple, induction relies on observation of past events and using them you can make inferences about future similar events which may turn out to be true or false. However, Einstein nor anyone else could have made any measurements or observations about curved space or time dilation so here we have pure deduction, he worked it all out without recourse to any data. In fact it would be another 11 years before anyone was able to test and verify his predictions.

You changing names and theories does not mean you have solved the problem - here once again we look in the past for guess who Einstien and 11 years after him - all in the past - ofcourse the usual inductive argument - its funny because all the examples you give the only way you can come to the concluion that they are absolute is simply by Induction.

You say Newton said it (yes in the past) Einstien did this (yes in the past) 11 years later they tested it (guess what thats in the past as well). So according to you this must mean there theories have to be absolute in the future as all there tests and great work was done in the past.

Do you want to give more examples of Induction or is this not enough for you???

ANYONE can bizarrely deny Newtons Laws, it makes no differences as the effects which those laws describe CANNOT be avoided no matter what you believe. In fact you are the one who denies them because you believe, without a shred of evidence, that they can change tomorrow so you essentially deny the proof. If someone (as a Saudi cleric did in 1977) declares the earth flat then I can tell him what to do to test it. In fact in the case of the Saudi cleric he was forced to withdraw his fatwa or face further ridicule when he saw a Saudi astronaut in the space station.

You dont KNOW that because they might not work in the future - there is always a chnace of that - slim but there is - this is why they are NOT absolute. You fall into induction once again how do you know they are absolute - (do you like going in circles) You have failed to show any non inductive reasoning - all the works you talk about Newton, Einstien are all in the past - do you understand that? Its induction.

Lets not forget about the christain church that imprisoned a man called Galilo. - Anyway a great exmaple of Hugo going way off topic with your love affair with the saudis.

ANYONE can bizarrely deny Newtons Laws, it makes no differences as the effects which those laws describe CANNOT be avoided no matter what you be

I will say it again when we have laws of nature that have been uncovered by deduction so they can be falsified - meaning we know how to test them. So for Newtons Laws of motion it does not matter if we tested them with a big car, a green car, a sports car, a bus, bulldozer, a bicycle they will always work.

Now if we turn briefly to the question of is the Qu'ran true then I do not know of a single test that is capable of universal falsification. Here I mean that the Qu'ran MUST be regarded as just a book, like any other book so whatever test you or I think of MUST be applicable to any book because we cannot automatically know that any book is or is not from God - we have to test them. So if you know of such a test then tell us about it?

Man its like talking to a brick wall - you know how to test them - How in God's earth does that make it absloute or certian that it will work in the future - are you going to give me another inductive reasoning?? we did a test in the past so it must work the futuire as well - what part induction do you not understand with this one as well.

universal falsification? if you know something can be falsified how does that make it more true or false Hugo??? we would have define what is true and false here as well.

do you agree that Newtons laws are a strong BELEIF and not a certainty/absolute due to the problem of induction which you keep showing me.

 

[Zafran]

By the way Hugo your definition of the Quran being ONLY a book like any other book is wrong because the Quran has many purposes and a book is only one of them. So its not just a book. Do you know what else it is as you like talking about the Quran so much??

 

[Lynx]

The simple fact is that Newtons Laws may be falsified - meaning we have a test that every one agrees on and everyone can do at any time and this has been done and so unless you can create a test that shows otherwise the laws are true now and always will be.

No the fact that Newton's laws haven't been falsified do not show that Newton's laws will always be true; it only shows that Newton's laws are true *so far*. Maybe the best way to explain this to you is if you can construct your argument in a syllogism; you will see the error you're making quite easily I think. Standardizing arguments is useful!

[However, Einstein nor anyone else could have made any measurements or observations about curved space or time dilation so here we have pure deduction,

You've misunderstood the nature of deduction. A pure deduction cannot yield any new data! If you know standard deduction then you know the goal of a deduction is to show that a conclusion follows from a set of premises. Now the error you're making is that you think deduction on it's own can lead to data that is empirically true. This is not the case and the easiest way to see this is to look any deduction and notice that the premises are either arbitrary symbols (in formal logic) or assumed to be true or theorems in logic. In science the premises are assumed to be true based on induction so the reasoning Einstein applied might have been deductive but the origin of his premises certainly weren't.

ANYONE can bizarrely deny Newtons Laws, it makes no differences as the effects which those laws describe CANNOT be avoided no matter what you believe. In fact you are the one who denies them because you believe, without a shred of evidence, that they can change tomorrow so you essentially deny the proof.

This actually illustrates the confusion quite well. You are saying that Zafran denies the 'proof' well you'd be right if science was based on 'proofs' but it isn't. Proving is something that is done only in an axiomatic system like math or logic. In logic the axioms are self-evident & in math they are true but unprovable. In science they are assumed to be true because of induction. A proof leaves no logical possibility of being wrong so Zafran is 100% right in saying that it's possible that the laws of physics might not apply tomorrow BECAUSE the logical possibility exists. The best way to look at the difference between a real absolute proof as opposed to something accepted in science is the Pythagorean theorem. the theorem might work for all the triangles we ever drew in class but how do we know it will work for every triangle that we might possibly make? Well the answer to that question would be a real proof because there will be no logical possibility that it might be wrong.

And just as im explaining this; something is logically possible when it's negation does not imply a contradiction.

edit: i am not sure i follow your argument. the quran can easily be falsified... just find a contradiction (logically falsified) or find a statement about the world that isn't true (empirical falsification). for instance, if it turns out evolution is true then i don't see how the quran would not be falsified. at the very least, orthodox islam will have bit the dust.

 

[Hugo]

No they are not absolute - your "test" does not make Newtons law absolute as I have shown before from your own examples simply you saying it does not mean you are true or all these "people that agree with you" which frankly I have not met - your the first one to actually claim newtons laws are absolute.

Well we seem to be at an impasse. You do not understand the notion of falsification and why it is important. You as far as I can tell take the view that there is only one way, induction, to know anything so for you NOTHING can be proved, indeed the very notion of proof for you is not possible. Even when I showed that Einstein did not, could not have used induction you cling to the view that it nevertheless must be induction. I have as best I can tried to explain these things but you more or less claim infallibility, you cannot possibly be wrong and cannot even see that I might feel the same way, that I indeed am talking to a brick wall. So can you EXPLAIN:

1. What is meant by proof or is such an idea impossible - I am assuming here that we can agree that proof by induction is NOT possible (I do not include Mathematical induction here).

2. Can you explain how one constructs a scientific proof, simplistically, how do you end up with the formulas and know they are 'true'

3. As far as I can tell you do not accept and cannot explain what deduction is. Please prove me wrong by explaining it with an example and then demonstrate the difference between and inductive inference and a deductive prediction.

4. If you are so certain that say Ohms law could change in the future can you cite evidence to support that conjecture?

 

[Abu Zakariya]

Hugo,

1. I don't think the scientific method is at fault its that we cannot get material data with which to work?

I agree. It is limited in that it doesn't even deal with existential issues, or moral ones. But it isn't "at fault", since that sort of thing isn't its purpose in the first place.

2. One has to be careful when arguing in the form of what God would or would not do because it pre-supposes he exists so we end in a paradox.

Yeah, but I was speaking as a believer to a fellow believer in God. But even if I were presenting that argument when speaking to an atheist, I think he/she would appreciate the point I was making there.

What is your take on this?

I thought you'd never ask :statisfie If I've understood you correctly, I think that we share the same basic perspective on this, with some differences in nuance. And I would put it a bit differently. I'll insert a text I wrote a while ago on this, and suggest that you read it and decide whether or not our views are indeed similar. Read it if you've got time to spare, it's a bit long so I don't blame you if you decide to take a pass on this suggestion of mine. Here it is:

I have been thinking very much about the issue of atheism. And throughout the years I have come across many of the various arguments in favor of God's existence. For instance, you have the various cosmological arguments, like the one that basically states that we must be created since the alternative would have been endless regression, which doesn't work. Also you have the argument that if the world were eternal (as opposed to created), we would never have been able to reach this point in time, since it would take an eternity to reach this time period, etc.

The thing is it that even though all of these arguments are very interesting, I realized that they actually don't have anything to do with my faith in God. What I mean is that even if I never got to hear any cosmolocigal arguments, I would still believe in God, regardless of those arguments. And even if an atheist were to convince me that the cosmological arguments do not hold up in light of modern scientific knowledge, I would still believe in God. Belief in God is simply a part of me. It would therefore, in a sense, be intellectually dishonest of me to use such arguments when discussing the issue with atheists, wouldn't it? This realization made me reflect even more on this issue. And the issue is basically about the relationship between faith and proof.

The atheist requires proof. He says that he can't believe in God unless and until he sees some proof for His existence. The thing is, though, that before we do anything, we must first agree on what exactly it means to prove something, philosophically. Not everyone agrees on what it means to prove something. The atheist, since he is a naturalist/materialist, will tell you that empiricism is the only way to go. However, there are a few problems with this. First of all, theists do not believe that God is material. So we have a dilemma: how can we use a method (empirical science) created to observe the material world around us, to determine the existence of an incorporeal being? Also, Islam tells us that life is a test and that God therefore cannot be observed empirically (since everyone would then believe in Him, and there would be not test). But there are more problems here. For even the naturalists/materialists who believe that empiricism is the only valid method to reach the truth about things differ among themselves regarding which method truly is legitimate and which isn't. To give a couple of very simplified examples of how secular, materialistic philosophers of science differ among themselves: you have the Positivists who say that induction and deduction is the legitimate scientific way to go, you have Marxists who believe that historical materialism is legitimate, you have the Freud crowd who believe that psychoanalysis is scientific. And then you have Karl Popper, who argues that falsificationism is the correct method, and that Freud's and Marx's theories are pseudo-scientific and that Positivism doesn't measure up. Then you have Kuhn who tells you that science is really about paradigms, and if you take Feyerabend's word for it, well, then anything goes, every method is valid in the pursuit of truth. So according to this way of looking at things, you have to do a thorough study of the philosophy of science so that you can navigate through this jungle of theories about what it means to prove something, before you can even begin to reach the truth about God. But not everybody can do this (since education requires time and money, and not everyone has this). And what about the people who lived before all of these theories were even developed (those who lived before Popper, Marx and the Positivists), did they have less of an opportunity to reach the truth about God compared to us who live in a time when more knowledge has been accumulated? If you believe in a God who is merciful and that He therefore makes the truth about Him accessible to all, all of this sounds absurd. Atheists of course neither accept the premise that God exists or that He makes the truth about Him accessible to all. But our discussion here is about exactly that type of god, so to speak. The god I believe in is one that possesses these attributes (He is merciful and wants guidance for all), so if an atheist wants me to prove the existence of the god that I believe in, then the discussion has to be about that god and not some other god that doesn't want guidance for all (and therefore makes it inaccessible). The atheist cannot demand that I give him empirical evidence to prove the existence of "my" god when I don't believe in a god that would make empiricism and scientific proof the way to know Him since, as I said, that would mean that the elite of society (those who have time and money for education) have an advantage over people who have other things (such as pure survival) to think about. I hope it is clear what I mean by this. In short, my belief in God is such that I do not believe that empiricism is the way to prove it, and therefore, a paradox arises if the atheist requires empirical proof for this belief of mine.

We thus have a dilemma on our hands, don't we? If the atheist requires that I prove God's existence empirically, he is basically asking me to prove the existence of a god that I do not believe in, since the god that I believe in would not have made knowledge of Him dependent on scientific education (as the latter isn't universally available). In addition to this, God is not tangible, and so a method created for the observation of the material world cannot, by definition, be used to find out whether he exists or not. So what is it I am trying to say? That it can't be proven that God exists? No, that is not what I mean. What I am saying is that the way to reach the truth about God, to know whether he exists or not, must be superior to empiricism, and this method must be accessible to all, not only those with a scientific and philosophical education.

What, then, is this method? I think the easiest way to explain this is through a concrete example that even an atheist can relate to. The example is about murder. We know it is not possible to prove scientifically that murder is wrong. This is because science is about how things are, and not how they ought to be. Therefore, to use science to determine whether murder is morally wrong is like using a thermometer to measure the height of the ceeling - the method is unsuited to the task. But despite the lack of evidence for murder being wrong, most people still believe that it is. Why? Because the belief that murder is wrong is an innate and natural human feeling. Therefore, when a prophet comes and tells you that murder is wrong and that you have to shun it, man has no excuse to reject this command. You cannot say, "Well, I might have to first do some scientific research before I can believe that murder is wrong", it will not count as an excuse on Judgement Day. This is because we already possess this belief, God created us that way. The same is true of faith in God. It is intuitive and natural in man so that everyone, regardless of education and economic status, can know that He exists. It requires no research.

The question of course arises: "If everyone is born with an intuitive faith in God, how come there are disbelievers." Well, deep down, all of us have faith in God (and it comes out, for example, if we find ourselves in a crashing plane and ask Him to save us), but with time you supress it, so to speak, and ignore it. And because you don't affirm it in your life, God will not guide you. That is to say, because the person ignores his inner faith in God, he is ignored by God (in the sense that God doesn't guide this person to follow Him). This happens not only with faith in God, it also happens with other truths that people know intuitively, like the example of murder I mentioned earlier. Although we all know deep down that murder is wrong, there are still people who ignore this inner belief and try to legitimize various forms of killing (such as terrorism or a state's bombing of civilian areas). In the same way, you have others who justify lying, stealing and so on.

 

[Lynx]

What, then, is this method? I think the easiest way to explain this is through a concrete example that even an atheist can relate to. The example is about murder. We know it is not possible to prove scientifically that murder is wrong. This is because science is about how things are, and not how they ought to be. Therefore, to use science to determine whether murder is morally wrong is like using a thermometer to measure the height of the ceeling - the method is unsuited to the task. But despite the lack of evidence for murder being wrong, most people still believe that it is. Why? Because the belief that murder is wrong is an innate and natural human feeling. Therefore, when a prophet comes and tells you that murder is wrong and that you have to shun it, man has no excuse to reject this command. You cannot say, "Well, I might have to first do some scientific research before I can believe that murder is wrong", it will not count as an excuse on Judgement Day. This is because we already possess this belief, God created us that way. The same is true of faith in God. It is intuitive and natural in man so that everyone, regardless of education and economic status, can know that He exists. It requires no research.

The question of course arises: "If everyone is born with an intuitive faith in God, how come there are disbelievers." Well, deep down, all of us have faith in God (and it comes out, for example, if we find ourselves in a crashing plane and ask Him to save us), but with time you supress it, so to speak, and ignore it. And because you don't affirm it in your life, God will not guide you. That is to say, because the person ignores his inner faith in God, he is ignored by God (in the sense that God doesn't guide this person to follow Him). This happens not only with faith in God, it also happens with other truths that people know intuitively, like the example of murder I mentioned earlier. Although we all know deep down that murder is wrong, there are still people who ignore this inner belief and try to legitimize various forms of killing (such as terrorism or a state's bombing of civilian areas). In the same way, you have others who justify lying, stealing and so on.

All you're doing here is speculating on the nature of morality and speculating on the states of an atheists inner heart without any evidence.

Also, most atheists that I know and most academic atheists that I have read don't just ask for empirical evidence for God because they're 'materialists'. A priori arguments would probably suffice too; the traditional ones that you've mentioned, however, don't really work.

 

[Hugo]

Hugo,I agree. It is limited in that it doesn't even deal with existential issues, or moral ones. But it isn't "at fault", since that sort of thing isn't its purpose in the first place. Yeah, but I was speaking as a believer to a fellow believer in God. But even if I were presenting that argument when speaking to an atheist, I think he/she would appreciate the point I was making there.

Give me a day or two to look at your post but I think we have common ground in that we are dealing with moral questions and so to arrive at the 'truth' we have to consider arguments and objections and in essence debate such issues though I would qualify that by saying that it cannot be done once and for all because inevitably new points of view or objections or those terrible inconvenient facts show up and there is little we can do about that. My view is summed up by Bury in his book "A History of the Freedom of Thought" (you can get it free as a eBook)

The only way in which a human being can approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognizant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties.

But yes if we can agree that at least we believe in a God then he can be discussed though others may think us bonkers

 

[Hugo]

By the way Hugo your definition of the Quran being ONLY a book like any other book is wrong because the Quran has many purposes and a book is only one of them. So its not just a book. Do you know what else it is as you like talking about the Quran so much??

But even what you say here is true of any book. The moment you set it on a pedestal is the moment you have already decided it is special and we are into circular arguments again. It is also true that what you say is a matter of opinion and not fact unless you are infallible. Every day I hear people saying "the Bible is much more than a book", "football is much more than a game" and so on and to them it may well be "more than" but it need not be to anyone else. Unless you are able to see this you can never even get close to objectivity because you start off with the answer you want and look for a way, and there is always a way to prove it and if anyone shows up with a way the does not give you the answer you want you dismiss it. I am familiar with those other things and one of them is to treat it as a kind of talisman to ward off disaster but many many other books, notably religious nones have a list of 'extra' things.

 

[Zafran]

Well we seem to be at an impasse. You do not understand the notion of falsification and why it is important. You as far as I can tell take the view that there is only one way, induction, to know anything so for you NOTHING can be proved, indeed the very notion of proof for you is not possible. Even when I showed that Einstein did not, could not have used induction you cling to the view that it nevertheless must be induction. I have as best I can tried to explain these things but you more or less claim infallibility, you cannot possibly be wrong and cannot even see that I might feel the same way, that I indeed am talking to a brick wall. So can you EXPLAIN:

1. What is meant by proof or is such an idea impossible - I am assuming here that we can agree that proof by induction is NOT possible (I do not include Mathematical induction here).

2. Can you explain how one constructs a scientific proof, simplistically, how do you end up with the formulas and know they are 'true'

3. As far as I can tell you do not accept and cannot explain what deduction is. Please prove me wrong by explaining it with an example and then demonstrate the difference between and inductive inference and a deductive prediction.

4. If you are so certain that say Ohms law could change in the future can you cite evidence to support that conjecture?

you dont seem to grasp what I am saying - thanks to induction we cant be certain that Newtons laws, Ohms Laws or even Einstiens work are absolute/certain. I have shown you many times - so what I am saying is that all these laws may work in the future (which is my belief) but thats what it is a strong belief NOT absolute, which is what you are claiming - as there is always a chance that these laws may not work the next day. Its very simple - Lynk seems to understand where I'm coming from I dont know why you cant see that as all these "laws" rely on past experiments. Give me an example where you feel you are using deduction - I will show you where you are actually using induction to "prove" its absolute.

1 - well clearly we do not as you seem to believe it gives absolute certainty in the future.

2 - how does this solve the problem of induction? we will still rely on past experimental "proofs" - like a test we can do a millions of times - we can believe that it will work in the future does this mean that its absolute in the future - of course not

3 - Show me where you use deduction and dont rely on past experiments?

4 - This shows your confusion of my position - I strongly BELIEVE that Ohms laws or Newons laws is going to work in the future - but this is NOT absolute as there is always a chance that it could be wrong in the future that is becasue we simply dont know the future. There is no absolute here - your the one claiming that. How do you "prove" that by induction.

 

[Zafran]

But even what you say here is true of any book. The moment you set it on a pedestal is the moment you have already decided it is special and we are into circular arguments again. It is also true that what you say is a matter of opinion and not fact unless you are infallible. Every day I hear people saying "the Bible is much more than a book", "football is much more than a game" and so on and to them it may well be "more than" but it need not be to anyone else. Unless you are able to see this you can never even get close to objectivity because you start off with the answer you want and look for a way, and there is always a way to prove it and if anyone shows up with a way the does not give you the answer you want you dismiss it. I am familiar with those other things and one of them is to treat it as a kind of talisman to ward off disaster but many many other books, notably religious nones have a list of 'extra' things.

This is odd coming from a person who believes that using past experiments of Newton or einstien will give you absolute certainty in the future. Isnt that circular also?

If somone uses the Quran like that whats your problem. You dont seem to have a problem when you use it to show the absolute of Newtons law in the future.

By the way the Quran is not just a book - how do we know it is just a book? is it not a criterion as well?

 

[Hugo]

You've misunderstood the nature of deduction. A pure deduction cannot yield any new data! If you know standard deduction then you know the goal of a deduction is to show that a conclusion follows from a set of premises. Now the error you're making is that you think deduction on it's own can lead to data that is empirically true. This is not the case and the easiest way to see this is to look any deduction and notice that the premises are either arbitrary symbols (in formal logic) or assumed to be true or theorems in logic. In science the premises are assumed to be true based on induction so the reasoning Einstein applied might have been deductive but the origin of his premises certainly weren't.

Pure and standard deduction are not terms I am familiar with. If I may say so I think you are a little muddled here. If we consider Einstein and relativity then we know his theory was not based on empirical evidence, data if you like, because at the time none existed, no one had any idea about curved space and time dilation. So the theory came from pure (to use your term) a priori reasoning, deductions and so he ended up with formulas. Now obviously, as you say, formulas are not experimental data BUT, and this is crucial, they tell you what data you need to collect IF the theory is to be verified - that is the premises did NOT come first, they arose from the deductive process. Therefore the experimental phase in essence verifies the premises and if they are true the conclusions is bound to be also true.

It is a logical paradox to say something is true but unprovable. However, induction cannot be used to prove anything and any assumptions of truth is similarly unjustified because we know the problem with induction is that the premises can all be true but the conclusion still be false so one cannot use it as a foundation for anything. Of course I understand in everyday life we use it all the time "it rained Monday and Tuesday therefore it's going to rain today" though NO ONE would assume that to be 100% safe. In much the same way if you argue that Newtons Laws of Motion arose from an inductive process there is no no reason to suppose they are true and can be relied upon, on the contrary one would have to be absolutely pessimistic since they can fail any time any where as well as be true any time anywhere. It is important here that you understand that induction ONLY allows us to make an inference about the future, a guess whilst deduction allows us to make a precise predictions. Of course you can decide that deduction is not possible but them we seem to be in the worst of all possible worlds being unsure about everything from one millisecond to the next.

One here has to ask what does it mean if we say we have discovered a law of Nature (I assume you believe that they exist?) and once discovered one tries to form a description of it such as Newton Laws of Motion, Ohms Law, Archimedes principles and so on. Now it is obvious that not every description is accurate so one has to test them and as I described above if we know the formulas we can know what data to use in our tests. For example, and being simplistic I could use Ohms law to predict the current in a circuit if I know the voltage and resistance, hence to test this prediction I create a circuit and see what value of current I get - if it agrees with the prediction the laws is verified. proved. This is not an inference based on ANY previous data, I don't need any and did not use any; it is a prediction based on a law and I have no logical reason not to take that law as absolute and give me the correct values every time. To suggest that this will not be true tomorrow is contrary to the Uniformity we see in nature.

Perhaps we do as William Clifford suggested and say that for certain things such as natural laws nature is for all practical purposes uniform and things outside those laws we cannot make such an assumption.

The theorem might work for all the triangles we ever drew in class but how do we know it will work for every triangle that we might possibly make? Well the answer to that question would be a real proof because there will be no logical possibility that it might be wrong.

This question was answered about 1200 years ago by a famous Arab Mathematician, Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī from where we get our word algebra (al-jabr). One does NOT have to try all possible triangles because when we express a triangle algebraically the formula therefore contains EVERY triangle - that was the brilliant insight of Khwarrismi.

i am not sure i follow your argument. the quran can easily be falsified... just find a contradiction (logically falsified) or find a statement about the world that isn't true (empirical falsification). for instance, if it turns out evolution is true then i don't see how the quran would not be falsified. at the very least, orthodox islam will have bit the dust.

Here is looks like you don't quite understand the notion of falsification. What it means is that at least in principles we can find a test that COULD falsify a law or conjecture, it may not do that but we have to be convinced that it can. It may help you to see this if you think of the famous "are all Swans white" - well we have two choices, find every swan in the world or use the simple falsification rule find a black Swan (or any other colour). The point here is that EVERYONE can see and agree that the falsification rule is sufficient and will absolutely decide that matter. If we now consider the Qu'ran being from God and say the falsification test is to do with the perfection of its syntax then it seems obvious (to me) that that is not sufficient.

 

[Hugo]

you dont seem to grasp what I am saying - thanks to induction we cant be certain that Newtons laws, Ohms Laws or even Einstiens work are absolute/certain. I have shown you many times - so what I am saying is that all these laws may work in the future (which is my belief) but thats what it is a strong belief NOT absolute, which is what you are claiming - as there is always a chance that these laws may not work the next day.

I do see what your saying but I also think you are wrong and you did not even attempt to answer my questions - why not or is it cannot?

2 - how does this solve the problem of induction? we will still rely on past experimental "proofs" - like a test we can do a millions of times - we can believe that it will work in the future does this mean that its absolute in the future - of course not.

I have repeatedly stated the the problem of induction cannot be solved, there is NO way meaning NO possible way to ensure that when its premisses are true its conclusion is also true. Why do you keep asking this, have I stated it correctly or not, if not then You tell us what the problem is and how its to be solved.

3 - Show me where you use deduction and dont rely on past experiments?

I gave the example of Einstein and relativity - he arrived at a correct description of space and time but without recourse to induction since there were no past events available to him so no possible way to draw any inferences yet using his equations he could correctly predict the future. I think your problem is that you cannot explain what induction is, I have asked you several times but no response.

The theory gave us the variables involved and hence a test could be constructed to see if the equations correctly predict reality. Still you notice there is NO induction going on here and 11 years later the result of the first test verified his equations. No induction again since there was no previous data. Cannot you see that the equations (not previous events) told us exactly and precisely where to look.

4 - This shows your confusion of my position - I strongly BELIEVE that Ohms laws or Newons laws is going to work in the future - but this is NOT absolute as there is always a chance that it could be wrong in the future that is becasue we simply dont know the future. There is no absolute here - your the one claiming that. How do you "prove" that by induction.

One can imagine the pilot of an Airliner walking through the passenger cabin and telling everyone "that he strongly believes the plane will take off even though it has no faults but the laws of nature might fail at any moment".

But you are right YOU cannot be certain of the future by inductive means. In the same way you cannot show by induction that laws might fail because there are no cases which you can use. In contrast Einstein predicted an event 11 years before it happened without ANY previous data to work with.

I will concede though that I assume nature is uniform. But unless you can see a difference between induction and deduction we can go no further as we have no common ground.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

Hugo,

I don't know what facts you are talking about that would be inconvenient, I certainly don't consider any facts to be inconvenient when it comes to this type of discussion. And I doubt that there are many who would sincerely consider others to be bonkers for believing in God; even someone like Christopher Hitchens admitted that a belief in God comes naturally to the human race, he simply wishes that we "outgrow" it or try to keep it private. So whilst there may be many out there who feel that there is no scientific proof or philosophically rigurous arguments for the existence of God, I do doubt that people, deep down, consider believers in God to be bonkers. That's what I think.

 

[Lynx]

Pure and standard deduction are not terms I am familiar with. If I may say so I think you are a little muddled here. If we consider Einstein and relativity then we know his theory was not based on empirical evidence, data if you like, because at the time none existed, no one had any idea about curved space and time dilation. So the theory came from pure (to use your term) a priori reasoning, deductions and so he ended up with formulas.

It is a logical paradox to say something is true but unprovable. However, induction cannot be used to prove anything and any assumptions of truth is similarly unjustified because we know the problem with induction is that the premises can all be true but the conclusion still be false so one cannot use it as a foundation for anything. Of course I understand in everyday life we use it all the time "it rained Monday and Tuesday therefore it's going to rain today" though NO ONE would assume that to be 100% safe.

Of course Einstein's theories were based on induction. What you say here:

To suggest that this will not be true tomorrow is contrary to the Uniformity we see in nature.

Perhaps we do as William Clifford suggested and say that for certain things such as natural laws nature is for all practical purposes uniform and things outside those laws we cannot make such an assumption.

IS the induction because you don't know that the universe will be the same in the next second. We, as humans who employ induction at every moment of life, implicitely add the assumption that 'and the universe is uniform' in order to make it sound 'deductive'. But the logically possibility exists that it isn't because you have not proved that the universe is uniform; you only;y think it's uniform because of our human collective experience. Again, perhaps you are holding onto the fact that this would be a really ugly way of looking at life and in this case you are right EXCEPT I , and scientists, don't have a problem with laws of nature because our experience is so great with them that we can say with 99.9% certainty that they will be the same tomorrow while deep down acknowledging that we only know this inductively. TO modify your example of rain, consider the following inductive argument: It has rained everyday and second of the last 14billion years; therefore it will rain tomorrow. This is how we should REALLY view our laws of nature if we are to be completely consistent with logic.

Here is looks like you don't quite understand the notion of falsification. What it means is that at least in principles we can find a test that COULD falsify a law or conjecture, it may not do that but we have to be convinced that it can. It may help you to see this if you think of the famous "are all Swans white" - well we have two choices, find every swan in the world or use the simple falsification rule find a black Swan (or any other colour). The point here is that EVERYONE can see and agree that the falsification rule is sufficient and will absolutely decide that matter. If we now consider the Qu'ran being from God and say the falsification test is to do with the perfection of its syntax then it seems obvious (to me) that that is not sufficient.

Oh, I get your point. You're absolutely right here! There appears to be no falsification test for any religious text unless you take the part of the text that is meant to be scientific and falsify it scientifically (i.e., adam and eve) but then they can turn around and say it was a metaphor.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

Lynx

All you're doing here is speculating on the nature of morality and speculating on the states of an atheists inner heart without any evidence.

I don't feel that I was speculating on the nature of morality. Like I said: I don't think that science deals with it at all and I stated the reasons why. Are you suggesting that there is such a thing as a scientifically verifiable moral truth?
What I said about the inner state of the atheist is a religious explanation and I never claimed that I've provided evidence for it.

Also, most atheists that I know and most academic atheists that I have read don't just ask for empirical evidence for God because they're 'materialists'. A priori arguments would probably suffice too; the traditional ones that you've mentioned, however, don't really work.

Most atheists that I've come across do ask for proof for God's existence from the natural sciences and, conversely, say that they disbelieve in God because they don't feel that the natural sciences show anything that would indicate His existence. But, I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there who would accept an a priori argument. Don't feel shy about telling me why the arguments that I presented don't work.

 

[Zafran]

I do see what your saying but I also think you are wrong and you did not even attempt to answer my questions - why not or is it cannot?

I'm very aware you know what I am saying but it looks like you like Ignoring what I'm saying. Its funny as somebody else also explained it to you yet you ignored that didnt you?

I gave the example of Einstein and relativity - he arrived at a correct description of space and time but without recourse to induction since there were no past events available to him so no possible way to draw any inferences yet using his equations he could correctly predict the future. I think your problem is that you cannot explain what induction is, I have asked you several times but no response.

The theory gave us the variables involved and hence a test could be constructed to see if the equations correctly predict reality. Still you notice there is NO induction going on here and 11 years later the result of the first test verified his equations. No induction again since there was no previous data. Cannot you see that the equations (not previous events) told us exactly and precisely where to look.

How does that make it absolute in the future? how do we know with certianty and absolute that it will work the next day?

One can imagine the pilot of an Airliner walking through the passenger cabin and telling everyone "that he strongly believes the plane will take off even though it has no faults but the laws of nature might fail at any moment".

But you are right YOU cannot be certain of the future by inductive means. In the same way you cannot show by induction that laws might fail because there are no cases which you can use. In contrast Einstein predicted an event 11 years before it happened without ANY previous data to work with.

I will concede though that I assume nature is uniform. But unless you can see a difference between induction and deduction we can go no further as we have no common ground.

So how do YOU prove that Newtons law or any other empircal law will work in the future with absolute certainty?

 

[Hugo]

Of course Einstein's theories were based on induction.

Einstein and relativity - he arrived at a correct description of space and time but without recourse to induction since there were no past events available, no one had or could at that time have observed curved space or time dilation for instance, so no possible way to draw any inductive inferences yet using his equations he could correctly predict the future. I think your problem is that you cannot explain what deduction is or misunderstand it. The theory gave us the variables involved and hence a test could be constructed to see if the equations correctly predict reality. Still you notice there is NO induction going on here and 11 years later the result of the first test verified his equations. No induction again since there was no previous data. Cannot you see that the equations (not previous events) told us exactly and precisely where to look.

TO modify your example of rain, consider the following inductive argument: It has rained everyday and second of the last 14billion years; therefore it will rain tomorrow. This is how we should REALLY view our laws of nature if we are to be completely consistent with logic.

This shows you don't quite understand induction or deduction. Suppose you toss a fair coin and it comes down heads 50 times in a row then induction would lead you to say the next toss will be a head also because previous events 'force' me to that inductive conclusion. But of course you know that the chance of getting a head NEXT time is exactly 0.5, in fact it would not matter if I got 1000 heads in a row the chance of a head next toss is still 0.5 - ask yourself how you KNOW this is correct, will always be correct?

Oh, I get your point. You're absolutely right here! There appears to be no falsification test for any religious text unless you take the part of the text that is meant to be scientific and falsify it scientifically (i.e., adam and eve) but then they can turn around and say it was a metaphor.

Well it is not quite that as far as our discussion goes - its what you CONCLUDE by doing the test for example, textual consistency is a test we can perform on say the Qu'ran and at the end of that we can affirm consistency or not. But let's assume we confirm it but then would it be logically acceptable to then draw the conclusion that the text is from God? That in a nutshell is the moot point.

 

[Lynx]

Einstein and relativity - he arrived at a correct description of space and time but without recourse to induction since there were no past events available, no one had or could at that time have observed curved space or time dilation for instance, so no possible way to draw any inductive inferences yet using his equations he could correctly predict the future. I think your problem is that you cannot explain what deduction is or misunderstand it. The theory gave us the variables involved and hence a test could be constructed to see if the equations correctly predict reality. Still you notice there is NO induction going on here and 11 years later the result of the first test verified his equations. No induction again since there was no previous data. Cannot you see that the equations (not previous events) told us exactly and precisely where to look.

I actually pointed out the exact part where the induction is taking place. The assumption of the uniformity of the universe is assumed BASED on induction because we think the universe is uniform based on previous experience. Every scientist assumes THIS implicitly. You can't ever escape logical doubt UNLESS you assume this because deduction on its own is completely useless in producing new knowledge. Let me tell you again: in a deduction all premises are either a) assumed/arbitary or b) previous theorems.

This shows you don't quite understand induction or deduction. Suppose you toss a fair coin and it comes down heads 50 times in a row then induction would lead you to say the next toss will be a head also because previous events 'force' me to that inductive conclusion. But of course you know that the chance of getting a head NEXT time is exactly 0.5, in fact it would not matter if I got 1000 heads in a row the chance of a head next toss is still 0.5 - ask yourself how you KNOW this is correct, will always be correct?

In inductive logic the truth of a conclusion is measured by probability rather than a binary T/F truth value that you find in standard systems of deductive logic. Fallacies in inductive logic are different from fallacies in formal logic . What I described to you was a textbook inductive argument. Another one is 'the sun has always risen everyday for the past 4.5 billion years; therefore the sun will rise tomorrow'. Another one is 'this bridge has withheld for 100 years; therefore the bridge will hold tomorrow as well'. These you can find your standard critical reasoning textbook. Are you sure YOU understand deduction or induction? I don't think you appreciate the uselessness of deductive logic if you don't take for granted your assumptions. Go to your local philosophy department, find the logic professor and ask him if it's possible that a deduction can tell you something about the world IF you don't assume something about the world as true.

Well it is not quite that as far as our discussion goes - its what you CONCLUDE by doing the test for example, textual consistency is a test we can perform on say the Qu'ran and at the end of that we can affirm consistency or not. But let's assume we confirm it but then would it be logically acceptable to then draw the conclusion that the text is from God? That in a nutshell is the moot point.

Yeah I understand. I think what you're looking for is the verification principle; a statement's truth can be determined by examining it's truth conditions. It's an old logical positivist's idea. You agree then that no holy book can ever produce such conditions?