Clark: Scientific Reasoning is fallacious

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
btw, he brings up some interesting "apparent contradictions" in the natural world (e.g., electrons having both wave and particle attributes, and yes, he calls them apparent contradictions). I'll be continuing my reductio and salvation of Van Til by proving that there are paradoxes in general revelation, i.e., the natural order so stay tuned....

Me again, Paul. As one of the resident Cheungians on the board, let me offer this quote from Vincent Cheung's "Systematic Theology", pg 18, http://www.rmiweb.org/books/theology2003.pdf

But it is popular to encourage a tolerance toward contradictions in theology. Alister
McGrath writes in his Understanding Doctrine:

The fact that something is paradoxical and even self-contradictory
does not invalidate it…Those of us who have worked in the
scientific field are only too aware of the sheer complexity and
mysteriousness of reality. The events lying behind the rise of
quantum theory, the difficulties of using models in scientific
explanation – to name but two factors which I can remember
particularly clearly from my own period as a natural scientist –
point to the inevitability of paradox and contradiction in any except
the most superficial engagement with reality…

This is nonsense. Granting that McGrath knows science well enough to speak on the
subject, this is a testimony against science, and not an argument for tolerating
contradictions in theology. He assumes the reliability of science and judges all other
disciplines by it. To paraphrase him, if there are contradictions in science, then
contradictions must be acceptable, and one must tolerate them when it comes to
theological reflection as well.
However, one reason to reject the reliability of science is precisely because it often
contradicts itself.

I'm not expecting to change anybody's mind though; just thought I'd offer a different perspective.

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
through the thread I gave the arguments.

The importance of names was supported by the entire Bibel's emphasis on it (he named his son... they called the place, etc). Also, this concept is held by almost every theologian I know of.

I'm just trying to understand your argument; is it because other individual's in the Scriptures named places and persons with names that had some of their characteristics, then Adam did so with the animals also?

As far as the theologians go, I know John Gill would agree with you, but John Calvin is silent on the matter. But I still don't see how **from the text** this conclusion is reached.

Also, are you seriously implying that when Adam went about having dominion he reasoned deductively about everything. Honestly, I'm tired of Clarkians. They're just silly. Wouldn't he have learned about his field and how best to grow things by inductive reasoning?

Are those the only two options - induction or deduction? For example, concerning Adam's field, I can offer a third option - revelation. (After all, he had the LORD with him, didn't he?) Also, if I named my cats "Flim" and "Flam" for no reason (within them), which method would this fall under?

Ricky, you still have never defined knowledge for me. I think you tried in the Cheung thread but I showed it to be a horrible definition. Until you do I have no clue what you're talking about.

To be honest, I'm still trying to sort it all out. Tentatively, I hold that knowledge is true belief. (I answered your question in good faith; I hope it wasn't a 'red herring'. At the moment, I would rather not go down some rabbit trail on whether knowledge is "true belief with an account" or "justified true belief" or whatever else contemporary epistemologists are debating. I hope you understand.)

To be honest with everyone, I pray for the day that the naive views of Clark et al are nothing but an embarrassing memory for reformed Christianity.

I think your prayer will be answered; for I believe in heaven Clark, Van Til, and Aquinas' views will be nothing but distant memories; instead we will learn at The Master's feet.

your brother in Christ,
Ricky

 

[JohnV]

Just to put my two cents in again, just so you know I'm still here (sometimes):

In High School the antagonists to my Christian faith said that science and history had proven that the Bible was not trustworthy on matters of science and history; therefore there was no basis upon which to show that the Bible was trustworthy for spiritual or religious guidance. What they were saying, by extension, was that if the Bible is not trustworthy for its truthfulness in any one area then it betrays that trustworthiness in all areas. The Bible says of itself, "Thy word is truth." And they knew it said that.

Now, be assured that they were refuted in their error quite effectively at that time. It got to the point that all that had to be said was "Piltdown man" and they were defeated in whatever they tried to put forward. In other words, their own argument was brought down upon themselves, showing that they were putting their complete and and unquestioned confidence in men who lie and believe the lie to sustain their theories (and that's all they had, theories, not science) to try to show that the Bible was not trustworthy. That was their whole argument at that time.

The significant thing about this is that in part of their assertion they were utterly right: if the Bible is not trustworthy in matters of science and history, then it breaks down the confidence we can have in the Bible's trustworthiness in areas of spiritual or religious guidance. In effect, it puts the Bible on an equal basis with all other religions. All we have to do to keep the wholeness of the Bible, then, is to deny any error, just the same as any other religion does. And who is there to say anything is wrong? If the Bible is not trustworthy in truth, then we can make of it what we want instead of what God says.

For example, we get the mystical Jesus, but a denial of a historical Jesus; we get the witness of miracles to Jesus' divinity, but not the actual miracles being done; we get the idea of God creating the world, but not a creation; etc., etc., ad nauseum.

We can say the same about science. That was how their argument was effectively refuted; if science is not trustworthy as a discipline, then how can it be called a science? It becomes no more than children's stories, only with sophistication. And to quite a degree that is exactly what it had become. Someday ordinary people, not just scientists, are going to laugh at our generation for believing in a flat universe, with all the false tales that go along with that. A person who claims to be scientific, asserting that the reality he is dealing with is filled with contradictions, is really only denying his own ability to reason it out. After his mind falls apart, the reality is still there unbroken and unscathed. His real problem is that he is not admitting to the reality of a true unifying factor to truth itself, within which reality exists.

As a point of interest, after grade twelve, almost all of these antagonistic unbelievers became believers, when they came face to face with their two faced-ness. They had tried to call Christians to truthfull integrity only to find their own duplicity.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by JohnV]

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by JohnV]

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Ricky, I guess you're right. The senses cannot be trusted ever. Because you obviously didn't read what I said!

My friend, I haven't not said, nor did the quote from Cheung, say otherwise (in this thread.) I believe what was being discussed was whether science was fallacious or not.

I never said there were contradictions. I said... APPARANT

Do you get the difference???? Your quote from Cheung had NOTHING to do with my argument, AT ALL.

Perhaps the large font just makes it look like your shouting, but this is just a friendly conversation, brother. I know you said apparent; but until a resolution is offered, there is the real possibility that the contradiction is actual.

Why would you call yourself a resident Cheungian? I think that's silly. Or, let me take something from Cheung: "This is nonsense."

My comment was tongue in cheek, brother. I don't believe your silly when you categorize yourself as a Van Tillian, though. I know your working toward apologetic uniformity on this board, brother. I applaud your efforts. But I hope you don't think that because someone doesn't follow Dr. Van Til's method that they are somehow denying Reformed orthodoxy.

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by JohnV
Just to put my two cents in again, just so you know I'm still here (sometimes):

John, I can't speak for anyone else, but I always appreciate your input.

A person who claims to be scientific, asserting that the reality he is dealing with is filled with contradictions, is really only denying his own ability to reason it out. After his mind falls apart, the reality is still there unbroken and unscathed. His real problem is that he is not admitting to the reality of a true unifying factor to truth itself, within which reality exists.

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by RickyReformed

Originally posted by Paul manata
Ricky, I guess you're right. The senses cannot be trusted ever. Because you obviously didn't read what I said!

My friend, I haven't not said, nor did the quote from Cheung, say otherwise (in this thread.) I believe what was being discussed was whether science was fallacious or not.

Oops, sorry, I just got it! That's pretty funny! See I told you the senses couldn't be trusted!

 

[JohnV]

Paul:

Would you agree that, if all deductive reasoning is fallacious, then it follows that all deductive reasoning is fallacious too? Why or why not? Just interested in what you think here.

Ricky:

Maybe I can be of help here. At least let me try:

What is induction?

If you say of that tree over there that it has branches (which it does have) then you have made a deduction. If by the evidence of these branches on this tree you say that all trees must have branches, then that is an induction. You are applying your observation of a particular instance to something of a wider scope than your observation strictly allows for. By your observation you only know about this tree.

Its like Mark Twain on the train with an elderly gentleman, who observed that the sheep in the pasture they were passing were remarkably all white. Mr. Twain replied that he could not possible know that the sheep were all white, because he could only know that the side facing him was white of each sheep; he could not see the other side of the sheep.

The man was inducing from what he could see that the sheep were as white on the other side as they were on the side he could see. That is induction; stating a general principle to a wider scope of observation than is actual.

So next we take up Adam. God told him to name the animals. Here comes a bear. What does Adam say and do? Does he read the manual God supplied, "Naming Animals for Dummies"? Does he have an innate PhD. from Waterloo University. Biology Dept.? Does he have the ability to know, but God takes him on a world tour and paints instructions on various cave walls, of which Adam takes all kinds of notes? No matter how you say it, God did give Adam the tools to work with; but it was Adam that named the animals.

If Adam had asked, "What's this?" and God said, "Well, that's a bear." then it would be God naming the animals. If God had put it into Adam's head, "This is a bear", or if God had carefully educated Adam, or given him the equivalent of an authoritative biologist, no matter how you slice it, Adam did this thing with knowledge of what he was doing. We do not suppose that he did it arbitrarily, just coming up with sounds that became names, but did it knowing what he was doing, however it was that he had this knowledge.

So, if Adam did this thing of naming the animals, whether with knowledge or by revelation, it does not matter, for he did it rightly, applying the revelation as he would the knowledge. And he classified things to a wider scope than the particular instance. So it must be that Adam used induction to name the animals. It really could be no other way.

How was that?

 

[JohnV]

Precisely!

That's why I'm having a hard time understanding what some people, like Clark, are saying. What are they questioning? It can't be the validity of inductive reasoning, because induction is presupposed in doing that. How does one question induction in science without using induction in science? It doesn't make sense.

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
4. My turn for a question: Give me an argument which proves that ALL inductive/scientific reasoning is fallacious?

[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Paul manata]

In as much as arguments using incomplete induction use the form "some x are y, therefore all x are y", they are invalid. To quote Copi & Cohen, "And if a syllogism is invalid, any other syllogism of the same form will be invalid." Arguments using this form are not a reliable method for discovering truth. Take John's example, "Some of the sheep (the side that is facing you) is white, therefore all of the sheep is white." Seems reasonable doesn't it? Now replace the "white" with "have no scars (or 'is scarless' if you prefer)" or "is clean"; Would you be willing to say that because all the sheep in the world who have no scars or mud on their right side, they therefore don't have any mud or scars on their left side? The same goes for your argument regarding Adam, "because the scriptures declare that some men named objects or persons after some characteristic in the object or person, therefore all men (in the scriptures) who named objects (such as animals) or persons did so because of some characteristic in the object or person."

The same applies to scientific reasoning *in as much as* it follows the following form, "if x, then y; y, therefore x". I don't have to examine every scientific argument that uses this form; it is invalid according to the canons of logic. Remember, from false premises we can deduce a true conclusion. Should I therefore use fallacious arguments simply because the conclusion happens to be true? Since these methods are *not* reliable in furnishing us truth, why build an apologetic on it? Am I not back at the probablistic arguments that I had in Thomism?

So with the introduction of "apparent contradictions" (a possible inference being that they are real contradictions) and by conceding the validity of the scientific method to the unbeliever, I believe it is Dr. Van Til who has hindered the apologetic endeavor. And this without denying that TAG can be a devastating argument against unbelief.

As for knowledge, what I understand you to say is that truth known accidentally (as in the hypothetical example: "My backyard has 2,000,000 ants.") cannot be knowledge? Is this correct?

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Now let me quote from Copi/Cohen:

"The preceding chapters have delt with deductive arguments, which are valid if their premisses establich the truth of their conclusion demonstartively, but invalid otherwise. Not all arguments are deductive, however A great many arguments are not claimed to demonstrate the truth of their conclusion as following *necessarily* from their premises, but are intended merely to support their conclusion as probable, or probably true. Arguments of this latter kind are generally called inductive arguments and are radically different from the deductive variety." (Copi/Cohen, p. 452).

So you admit these arguments are probabilistic?

Furthermore, has Ricky shown that all scientific arguments take this form? No, he said that: in as much as they do. So, I asked him to prove that all scientific arguments are fallacious and he didn't do that.

Yes, this is correct. Scientific arguments that proceed from true premises, using valid form, give us true conclusions. Can you show us one, Paul?

I have given arguments for how real contradiction are impossible.

Yes, but this does not mean that individuals cannot *believe* real contradictions and claim they are "apparent". Arminians and Amyraldians use this appeal all the time.

For example (assume this proposition is true):

X: "My backyard has 2,000,000 ants."

X is not knowledge (when you believe this accidentally)
X is knowledge (when you count the ants or if God reveals this to you)

So x is k and x is non-k.

If I use this appeal: "Now this may appear contradictory, but trust me, it is resolved in God's mind." does that make the contradiction go away?

That's right, me and every epistemologist in the world. I'd read a book or two on the subject before I respond. I have been in a detailed study of epistemology for the past 6 months and have went through 5 books (which are considered the top) on the subject. Just take my word for it, you're wrong.

You got me, my friend. :bigsmile: How could I disagree with you and *every* epistemologist in the world?

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by Paul manata
1. Yeah, they are. Why even ask that? I mean, who in the world thinks that inductive arguments are not!? I thought this was assumed. Ricky, don't throw the baby out with the Thomistic bath water. Proobability is wrong, I admit, when proving God's existence, but within a worldview that provides the transcendental for meaning they are fine when dealing with more periphial things.

Because as Christians, we should be concerned with speaking the truth. Why should we endorse a method that is unreliable, by its own testimony and rules, in discovering truth?

2. No no no, Ricky. Sorry friend, you made the claim. You said that *all* scientific reasoning was fallacious. You need to prove this claim. What you just did is teetering on argumentum ad ignorantum. That is, even if I couldn't it doesn't mean there isn't. Furthermore, please define science for me, then I can better analyze what's going on here.

I don't have a strict definition for science, brother; I was using the term as it is commonly used (something along the lines of "the observation, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Perhaps you can give us a more precise definition and we'll run with that. What do you say?

3. So. What does that have to do with me saying they are impossible? Moreover, you are confusing a *psychological* state of affairs with a *metaphysical* one. Just because one could *believe* P does not mean that and real P's obtain. Furthermore, and this will hurt a bit, your position allows for actual contradcitions! How?, well in the Cheung thread I showed that the silly view that everything is revealed from God (according to your construct) allows for contradictions. That is, person X sees a barn and person Y sees a mailbox (barn at a distance). Now you said God revealed that contradictory info. I said this was a problematic, you said it wasn;t because you held to active reprobabtion. ...Fine, whatever. The point is that your "story" has God revealing contradictions! If you'd like to change then please go back and deal with all the questions I brought up since you accepted my reductio just to save Clareungianism.

This is a straw man, my brother. Here is the original quote:

Originally posted by Paul manata
I'm saying that if you say this is a universal claim for everyone: "divine logos communicates all the knowledge that He wants my mind to comprehend" then God communicated lies! ... God says X and ~X are both true.

Your equivocating on my use of "communicated"; all I am saying is God causes everything, even your false beliefs. You use communicated as "telling". There is a world of difference between saying "God caused Bill to believe X and John to believe Non-X" and saying "God says X and non-X" Doesn't God cause Joe Christian to believe the gospel and Penny Pagan to not believe the gospel? Again, is Penny's belief that the gospel is false determined by her own free will? By spontaneous generation? By _________?

So, if you want to accurately represent my view in your example, the object seen is either: a) a barn b) a mailbox c) something else (a wall with a picture of a barn or mailbox, a hologram, illusion, etc.) However, it is the LORD that causes these individuals to believe what they believe.

Clareungianism

Now that's funny! How 'bout this one:

Bahn-tillianism

Waddaya think?

(Just trying to keep this light and friendly, Paul. In the past we've produced too much heat when we should have been producing more light. Love ya, man.)

 

[JohnV]

Can we get back to the main question?

Jacob wrote:

Clark: Scientific Reasoning is fallacious



I read this and was wondering what ye think of it. It seems, and I don't disagree that much, that Clark is trying to say that all scientific reasoning is fallacious, especially when it is set up as affirming the consequent.

If Hypothesis H is true, then Experiment E will produce results R.
Experiment E does produce results R.
Therefore, Hypothesis H is true.

What do you think?

Now we know that science doesn't work that way. Experiment E has to produce result R every time, and independent of other possible contingencies. And even then hypothesis H is not considered as absolute. And besides this, Clark is pressing on induction the rules of inference for deduction, and that itself is not proper. We know that the rules apply to deductive reasoning, even when one of the premises include an inducted generalization. That's how we check inductions; if the particular in one premise is true, and the conclusion appears true, then the induction is verified, to the degree that the conclusion appears true.

Again, science and theory on science are two different things. Experiment E produced result R: that's the science; result R tends toward the theory T, by extrapolation of the pattern, or by induction: that the theorizing. Then theory T is tested to a wider range of applications: science again. Two different things going on here.

Science is the actual experimentation or observation going on, but cannot be entirely disconnected from the theorizing. They are two different things, but are together part of doing science.

But is it not that way with all knowledge? We certainly did not know everything by syllogism. Some things we were told (the story of Jesus); some things we observed (the sound of a car going by); and some things we figured out (what is the answer to a certain puzzle). Maybe the mind does syllogism so automatically that we don't even know it; that's why the simple things seem so immediate to our minds when in actuality they may be mediate. Man did not figure out that God exists, He revealed Himself to us in various ways. Man cannot say that he does not know of God, for God has sufficiently revealed Himself so that no man has an excuse. Nor can one presuppose a tree, much less God, out of existence, no matter how hard he tries. The facts themselves do not change just because someone may have a different concept of understanding them.

So man knows in various ways. He is able to apprehend that he cannot escape certain inducted generalizations. They are undeniable, even if they remain unprovable in his own mind. The lengths people will go to to try to get out from under the necessities of truth are phenomenal. So there is that aspect to knowledge too, an unwillingness to bow the mind to truth.

Add to that, now, that in logic the word "fallacious" does not mean that the answer is wrong, but that it was gotten to without proper support. So we have to be carefull not to equate "fallacious" in logic to "wrong" in theory or thinking. Our intuitive minds, it seems, can sometimes know the answers long before we can make the connective syllogisms. For example, we have long known with absolute certainty that God exists, but who has come up with the syllogism to express what he knows? Each time he will be answered with the charge that the syllogism is "fallacious". Somehow we all knew that the moon was not eighteen feet deep in loose dust before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldren landed on it; but the actual proof was their landing.

Just a few thoughts to restart our thinking on this again. Not that I begrudge you two the right to battle this out between you, but you already tried that, and it seems that you're just going over old ground again. So let's work with each other instead. I have a few things to think through here, and I don't want to be excluded from this thread just yet. Is this OK with you?

 

[RamistThomist]

THank you John for your post. It was very informative. I need to reread it several times, though.

 

[RickyReformed]

Originally posted by JohnV
Can we get back to the main question?

Yes, of course, John. I echo Jacob's reply - I need to reread it a few times to be able to glean more from your post.


Let me say for now that I find it helpful if I think of these things in terms of certainty. If we apply the scientific method rigorously, can we be certain of that our conclusions are true? Working in the medical field, I'm always hearing that product x has been shown effective in treating y, only to discover a short time later that product x is now longer believed to be beneficial for treating y. Science does not have a very good track record when it comes to determining causality, either. For the sake of argument, let us assume that science sometimes is correct in discovering truth. Yet at other times, when the scientific method is utilized just as rigorously it yields false conclusions. Witness the currently popular hot big bang model. Christian scientist Hugh Ross states that if 1) Einstein's theory of relativity* is correct (he says that it should be called the law of relativity instead of the theory, since it is so well attested scientifically); and if 2) the universe has mass; then it is irrefutable that earth is old (at least several millions years old if not older).

Most of us on this board would disagree, correct? But why?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I disagree because the Lord, the Creator of the universe, has told us otherwise, and he cannot lie.

So here are two things that I believe are certain (and I would hope that no one on this board would disagree with this):
1. The statements found in God's Holy Word are true, because God cannot lie.
2. Conclusions determined from true premises, using valid form, are always true, because logic reflects the Mind of God.

So while everything else that I know may or may not be false, I can at least know this with certainty: What God reveals in His Word and anything that that can be deduced from Holy Writ by - to quote the Westminster Divines** - "good and necessary consequence" is true.

This is not to deny that there are extra biblical truths. For example, the following statement is true, "Sally is either a nurse or not a nurse." Yet I do not find this statement in the Bible.


*It has been pointed out to me by a friend that Einstein's theory of relativity is contradictory: according to the theory if a twin got on a space vessel that travelled away from the other twin at the speed of light, the twin on earth would age normally while the twin in space would age at a much slower rate. Yet according to this theory, it is equally correct to say that the twin on earth moves away from the twin in space at the speed of light as it would be to say vice versa. So the twin on earth should age slower than the twin in space, hence the contradiction. But can it be that it is only an "apparent" contradiction, especially since it is so 'well attested'? Or put another way: in this case, does logic trump science or does science trump logic?

**Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, sect. VI

[Edited on 6-2-2005 by RickyReformed]

 

[JohnV]

Or put another way: in this case, does logic trump science or does science trump logic?

The problem with this concept, Rick, is that you're using logic to try to trump logic. The science really doesn't have anything to do with it. That's why I said that science consists of two parts necessary to each other. We have to be careful here to keep them distinct, though they are both integral parts of doing science as a whole.

Here is another scenario. It goes back to point one in your post, namely that God cannot lie.

Person X knows of person Z, but person Y knows person Z. Which is better, to know of or to know? I mean, Mr. X has heard of Mr. Z, but Mr. Y goes to bowling with him every Thursday, and hangs out with him afterward, and on weekends they go boating and fishing together. They have lots of time to talk. Mr. X has only heard of him because he needs to beat his bowling average to become he new champ. Which knowing is to be preferred?

Well there are those who know of God, but it is much better for those who know God. But how did these latter get to know God? Was it not primarily because they were known by God first? Person X may be able to prove God exists, but person Y knows him personally, even though he never was one to think through a problem philosophically. And it is quite likely that, were he asked to provide a proof that God exists, that his so-called proof would be deemed fallacious. Yet there is no one more certain that God does indeed exist than he.

Does his failure to avoid fallacious argumentation mean that God does not exist? Certainly not; it means he can't argue his points adequately, that's all. Does he make a leap of faith in his belief in God? Certainly not, because otherwise he is mistaken that he really knows God; he has been fooling himself. Does his belief in God change the nature by which men know, some things as if immediate and some things as if mediate? Of course not. He uses more than syllogism in order to know, or it may be that he uses syllogism so automatically that he does not even discern it. (Think of the sound of a car going by, and contemplate which came first, the sound or the syllogism? Or were they simultaneous? Or does he know before he reasons? )

Now Mr. X and Mr. Y are both working at Johns Hopkins Research laboratory. One comes up with a study that shows that remedy a alleviates symptom s, while the other comes up with a study that shows remedy b alleviates symptom t. Is one study better than the other because one knows God and the other does not? No; it depends more on God's blessing the work than the person doing the study. And God is more likely to bless a believer than a non-believer, according to His Word. But that is not proof that the study was done well.

The mistake often made in our day is that there is a lot of money tied up in putting things forward on a scientific basis. And this monetary pressure too often gets people jumping to conclusions. We see it all the time. The government gets in on it too. They ride the gravey train on tobacco for as long as they can, and when the tide turns against tobacco use, they then pillage the gravey train with higher taxes because now it is wrong to smoke. So on subjects like these the real science hardly counts in on the problems we face with what studies seem to show. The problem seems to be laxness in the disciplines, not science itself.

About Einstein's "theory" of relativity, I cannot say anything about that. I've tried to understand it, but I find that the idea of a theory's contingency upon itself is too much for me to comprehend. I'm not a science expert. There still has to be something unchangeable behind the relativity for there to be any solid proof of it, it seems to me. They should actually have the same difficulty in proving Relativity as we do proving God's existence. The problem is, Relativity cannot reach down and know the seekers first. That's my problem with it. I need something that's not relative to show and prove that everything is relative.

This is the argumentative strength behind the TAG, if I'm not mistaken. Whether this is right or wrong of me, it yet is something that needs more thought. But for me, I take modern scientific endeavours with a grain of salt. If they were really serious about their science, than they would do really serious scientific work. But what we're getting is apologetic after apologetic, ad nauseum, on the validity of the billions-of-years concept, and we still don't really have anything to hang it on. It really has a much worse track record than even the simplest proof of God's existence. It is mostly extrapolation and fantasy, and extrapolation on fantasy; and science has really earned the reputation of being a quack discipline. It really isn't a quack discipline, because it is science that refutes that "science"; but I think that future generations are going to laugh at ours as being the most gullible of any generation. After all we're supposed to be one of the most educated of generations, with the most resourses available to individuals, in spite of rank, than any previous one. I can buy a 7 X 50 pr. of binoculars and have the same scientific advantage that Galileo had.

And as difficult as it may be to prove God's existence, it is certainly infinitely more difficult to prove He does not exist. The Presuppositional argument is that logic and reason don't make sound sense in any other framework than that God exists. The Ontological argument is that even the arguments against God's existence presuppose that God exists; its unavoidable. Is one right and the other wrong? We should be careful here that we don't assume too much, thinking that the argument itself is wrong when it is only the arguer that is wrong, or rather that he is inadequate to the argument itself. We don't want to make the same mistake in our theology that scientists do in their science.



[Edited on 7-2-2005 by JohnV]

 

[gwine]

It has been pointed out to me by a friend that Einstein's theory of relativity is contradictory: according to the theory if a twin got on a space vessel that travelled away from the other twin at the speed of light, the twin on earth would age normally while the twin in space would age at a much slower rate. Yet according to this theory, it is equally correct to say that the twin on earth moves away from the twin in space at the speed of light as it would be to say vice versa. So the twin on earth should age slower than the twin in space, hence the contradiction. But can it be that it is only an "apparent" contradiction, especially since it is so 'well attested'? Or put another way: in this case, does logic trump science or does science trump logic?

Actually there is no paradox as far as to which one will age. If there were a set of twins living in Chicago and one of them moved to Dallas then only one of them moved relative to the earth. Even watching from Dallas only one of them moved. Relativistic effects are dependent on the speed of the object referenced to the speed of light, so twin B that leaves earth for another star is the only one traveling at near light speed. Someone living on a planet circling another star would ‘see’ twin B approaching at near light speed but twin A would still be stationary, since earth’s motion relative to light speed is so little. Thus only twin B would experience the relativistic effect (i.e. slowing down of the aging process.)

The effect is real and has been measured. In 1971 an atomic clock was placed on a airplane and flown twice around the world and compared to another atomic clock left on the earth. The experiment was repeated flying the plane the opposite direction. The results were in close agreement with theory. But it is still only a theory, not an absolute.

Interestingly enough, relativity was needed to account for the location of the planet Mercury. Mercury actually moves fast enough to create its own relativistic effect and using standard Newtonian mechanics was not enough to predict exactly where is should have been.

I enjoy reading about science and I am amazed at the precision and order of creation. Those who see only random chance are truly living the lie. God has granted us the gift of science to use and I am glad He did, else I would probably not be alive today. To God alone be praises and honor and glory!

 

[JohnV]

quoted from Gerry
Those who see only random chance are truly living the lie.

I read somewhere that Darwin had nightmares at the end of his life. I can really imagine that he did. Here's why:

Man is born or created into this vast working of things working reasonably. Things aren't working against each other, or only for themselves, but together make up a unified whole. It was all running before he began to understand. But Darwin not only has man coming out of the animals, but has life itself coming out of non-life. What if he is right? Imagine that for a moment: life came out of non-life, and intelligent man (able to discover his origins from non-life and his descent from animals) descending from non-reasoning animals. If he is right, then he has undermined everything that is a subject of objective knowledge. In other words, if he is right in his discoveries of truth, then he has discovered absolutely nothing, and rendered all other discoveries as mere nonsense and jibberish. If he is right, then he is wrong; in fact more wrong than those who believe in a Creator. Much more wrong. Infinitely wrong!

And it gets worse from there.

Descartes at least was able to figure out that, out of complete skepticism, there was yet a firm undeniable grounding for objective knowledge. It was inescapable. One could say, I suppose, that for every negative movement in knowledge/objectivity there was an opposite and equal reaction to the positive in knowledge/objectivity, so to speak. But he assumed that there was a God at the beginning of all things, so for him there was always a solid ground, even if he doubted man's intellect to an extreme degree. Darwin had no such cushion or hope. The mere suggestion of skepticism to his theory became, after a while, a wild headlong landsliding catastrophy, completely out of control, and with no end to it.

If this were my theory, and I had to live with the widely distributed publishing of it, I would have gone out of my mind thinking about it. Even for Darwin, man's intellect is introduced into the factual existence of things, and not the other way around. And that's a horrendous, horrifying thought for an Evolutionist, when it finally comes to him. But it's everyday for those who know God, and it is their comfort and encouragement in trying to understand.

The ideal "Darwin" has utterly destroyed science for himself, and despairs; and the unscientific believer in God keeps on going discovering God's truth in both His Word and in the creation, and rejoices.

 

[RickyReformed]

Gerry, John, and Paul,

Please be patient with me though. I\'m not sure if you guys know that my wife and I have a new baby girl (two weeks old yesterday!) But I would like to address all three of the posts you guys posted yesterday. I\'ll try to get to at least one of your posts later today, if time permits.

Thanks fellas!
Ricky


Paul,

Before I address your post though; I would like to know if this is a point of agreement or if you have some caveat that prevents you from affirming this. Thanks, brother!

So here are two things that I believe are certain (and I would hope that no one on this board would disagree with this):
1. The statements found in God\'s Holy Word are true, because God cannot lie.
2. Conclusions determined from true premises, using valid form, are always true, because logic reflects the Mind of God.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
"Where exactly did I admit that Adam reasoned inductively? I am not clear on that point. Can you give me an example of an inductive argument that you think he would have made?"

Okay, I'm really confused here. Am I in the twilight zone? Here is what I asked you: "1. Did you not say that inductive reasoning was useful in helping us to have dominion over creation; in the other thread?"

You answerd: "Yeah. It doesnt have to be true in order to be useful."

Okay, see that? I asked if you admitted that we reason inductively in order to have dominion? You said: "Yeah." Now, I'm confused because I asked that in the context of Adam reasoning inductievly. Are you putting forth the argument that after Adam we reason inductively to have dominion, but before the fall Adam would not have reasoned inductively in order to have dominion?

My issue is if Adam reasoned inductively in order to name the animals. He may have done so in another context, but I see no reason to believe induction was used in animal naming.

CT asks:
"One question, is all generalization considered inductive? Even if you know you have seen all relevant cases?"

How would you know if you've seen *all* relevant cases?

Somehow God would have to be involved intimately. In the case of Adam, we have God bringing him animals and telling him to name them. In order to justify the belief that Adam reasoned inductively here, You would have to say that the particular instances of rhino etc did not contain all the rhino characteristics necessary for correct naming. I think you would basically have to accuse God of some form of deceit.

I would also say that it is a very high percentage that our generalizations are known via induction.

I would agree.

So, take a categorical syllogism: All M are P. All S are M. Therefore, all S are P. I would say that, in a great many cases, the premises are known or proved via inductive arguments. All ants are colony dwellers. All the bugs in my farm are ants. Therefore, all the bugs in my farm are colony dwellers. (This was an example, I'm not an ant expert.)

No problems there either. I just dont like the use of the phrase "inductively proven". I am way happier with inductively justified etc. (I am working on how to use the term warrant)

Ct clarifies:

"1) So what you are saying is not fallacious is when someone says I did X, Y and Z experiments and therefore I think something might be the case? I would agree fully."

Well, it'd be more complicated, but yes. Also, I would say that "I have strong reason to believe P is the case." Now, "strong reason" could be considered a form of justification. Hence, I would have justified it, believed it, and if it were true I would know it.

If it were true you would know it? Are you saying that knowledge is only as far as something corresponds to the truth? So the best you can say on most things is that "I think it corresponds to the truth" or "I think I know it"?

Knowledge by induction. Now, you may have a different view of justification and so I'd need to see that. This has been Clark's and Robbin's problem, though. That is, their failure to fulfill the analytic requirment of the word "knowledge."

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Paul manata]

I need to find out how closely Vincent adhere's to Clark on certain things as well as Clark's view. So that I can become a proper semi-clarkian

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
"My issue is if Adam reasoned inductively in order to name the animals. He may have done so in another context, but I see no reason to believe induction was used in animal naming."

Lets attack the less ambiguos, less problematic, concept. You have admitted that induction is useful to gain dominion. So, I contend that Adam reasoned inductively to have dominion. Unless you're postulating that post-fall reason inductively and pre-fall didn't?

Adam reasoned inductively to gain dominion. No problem there.

"Somehow God would have to be involved intimately. In the case of Adam, we have God bringing him animals and telling him to name them. In order to justify the belief that Adam reasoned inductively here, You would have to say that the particular instances of rhino etc did not contain all the rhino characteristics necessary for correct naming. I think you would basically have to accuse God of some form of deceit."



Huh? A particular rhino containing *all* the characteristics of rhinoness??? So it was multi colord? It was short and long? light and heavy? what do you mean here?

Where are you getting that God brought Adam ONE Rhino? The claim is that how ever many rhino's Adam was brought, the set contained all the info to correctly classify, or there are serious underlying assumptions that need to be addressed.

[/quote]
"I just dont like the use of the phrase "inductively proven". I am way happier with inductively justified etc. (I am working on how to use the term warrant)"

That's fine.
[/quote]

Cool. I guess we now need a percentage system like you have with Fred.

75%

"If it were true you would know it? Are you saying that knowledge is only as far as something corresponds to the truth? So the best you can say on most things is that "I think it corresponds to the truth" or "I think I know it"?"


Knowledge: belief, truth, justification, or the right kind of justification, or justification with warrant.

Okay. I think.

"I need to find out how closely Vincent adhere's to Clark on certain things as well as Clark's view. So that I can become a proper semi-clarkian "

No, just become a Van Tilian. it's okay. I don;t know whay all you college students need to be rebels

But Van Til was a realist. So I would be a semi-Van Tillian. So semi-VanTil and semi-Clark. That is my view currently.

CT

 

[gwine]

So I would be a semi-Van Tillian. So semi-VanTil and semi-Clark.

This sounds like smorgasboard apologetics, where you choose what is true according to the Word of God.

I am curious. How did you determine which parts of each were Biblical?

Keep going you two. I am mostly lost but I am finding the thread most fascinating.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
"Where are you getting that God brought Adam ONE Rhino? The claim is that how ever many rhino's Adam was brought, the set contained all the info to correctly classify, or there are serious underlying assumptions that need to be addressed."

I thought you meant one. But I'm glad we agree. Adam reasoned from *particulars* to a *generalization.* That's inductive reasoning!

It is inductive when your conclusion goes beyond the premises. All the information of his conclusion could be derived from his premises. Hence it would be considered deductive reasoning.

Normally a generalization would be inductive because we cannot be sure that there is not more info out there that we just missed. However if we are confident that our three rhino's are indicative of all rhino's then all is cool. Because the One who knows all is involved, then we can make turn our problem into a deductive one.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
"But Van Til was a realist. So I would be a semi-Van Tillian. So semi-VanTil and semi-Clark. That is my view currently."

I'm afraid that I must renig on my U2U. I listend to Butler's series. I need to go through again. But I'm a realist.

Fair enough. I just listened to the one on realism in particular, was there more on other ones?

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
"Adam reasoned inductively to gain dominion. No problem there."

Before the fall now?

Before or After, I dont have an issue either way.

Induction is a formal fallacy, not just a fallacy carte blanke.

CT

 

[JohnV]

Hermonta:

It is inductive when your conclusion goes beyond the premises. All the information of his conclusion could be derived from his premises. Hence it would be considered deductive reasoning.

It seems to me that if Adam collected all the particulars, then all he would have is a collection of particulars. That doesn't provide a generalization. A syllogism from particulars yields only a particular; you need a generalization in there somewhere.

Induction is a formal fallacy

Can you explain this for me? Isn't "formal fallacy" part of logic? Are you saying that induction can involve only logic, but is not logical? If it is confined to only logic, then why do the rules not apply, or rule it out altogether? Why is Induction a formal fallacy?

 

[JohnV]

Oops! I just doubled up on Paul's post. He put it much better.

 

[JohnV]

I agree, Paul. I remember your post. I was trying to get Hermonta to think through his objection to induction. But you were doing the same thing at the same time, but in a different way.

Its not that I don't understand. I can't see how Adam could have avoided induction; it's just not a possibility, it seems to me. And saying "induction is a formal fallacy" is a contradiction in and of itself. It says that it is and it isn't part of logic at the same time and in the same sense. It really doesn't say anything when you stop to analyze it. So I agree with you.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
"It is inductive when your conclusion goes beyond the premises. "

No, there's different types of inductive arguments (analogy).


"Al the information of his conclusion could be derived from his premises. Hence it would be considered deductive reasoning."


How do you get *all* from *some?* In a deductive argument if your two premises are particular and your conclusion is universal then you've commited a fallacy. So, show me how a deductive argument would go in this instance?

You think Adam knew classical deductive logic. Did he know not to have an undistributed middle?

Did he know it??? I am not so sure. Did he need to deviate from it in naming the animals? I dont think so.

"However if we are confident that our three rhino's are indicative of all rhino's then all is cool. "

So God told Adam that He brought him a perfect sampeling??? Doesn't God know more about the rino's than Adam??/ So, ADAM reasoned inductively since *HE* didn't have *ALL* the facts. if he did then I think you've deified Adam's mind. So, you're confusing Adams and God's mind here.

Why should I need to deify Adam's mind? God knows more about Rhino's than Adam of course. This would be true if Adam had seen all rhino's throughout history. Do you need all the facts in order to reason deductively? For example, you may have some premises but do not quite know all the implications of it. Do you cease to reason deductively because you do know some of the implications?

Why does Adam need all the facts about rhino's that God knows in order to name them in a deductive fashion? We dont have all the facts concerning plenty of things in the Bible, but we can deduce various things from the facts we are given.

Also are you saying that God willfully left out some information from the sample of rhino's that he brought to Adam to name?

"Because the One who knows all is involved, then we can make turn our problem into a deductive one."

No you can't.

Why not. What is the difference from adding the premise (God has signed off on this sample being sufficient) and deductive reasoning?

But, why waste time with this animals thing? My goal was to argue that not all inductive reasoning was fallacious. You said Adam reasoned inductively to have dominion. So Adam would have committed fallacies before the fall. Case over. QED

Huh? What Case? Inductive reasoning is not fallacious if you hold that your conclusions are only as good as your sample is sufficient or complete. I believe that is all we need in order to live successful lives and have dominion. We do our best and when we make mistakes (or learn about past mistakes) then we make changes and move on again.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Paul manata
"Adam reasoned inductively to gain dominion. No problem there."

Before the fall now?

Before or After, I dont have an issue either way.

Induction is a formal fallacy, not just a fallacy carte blanke.

CT

So Adam reasoned fallaciously *before* he fell??????

No.

Also, I already delt with this formal fallacy idea in my response to Ricky. You're judging induction by the rules of deduction. Like calling someone out in baseball for face-masking! So, when you do this you comit the fallacy of bifurcation.

I am not committing a fallacy. I am just pointing out that it is only wrong when people do induction and then act as if they had done deductive reasoning.

For a person to even attempt to attack the Bible with "science" they have to commit this fallacy.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Paul manata
"I am not committing a fallacy. I am just pointing out that it is only wrong when people do induction and then act as if they had done deductive reasoning."

You said : "Induction is a formal fallacy"

So, yes you did. It's okay, you've been trapped in Clareungianism's webs for awhile.

It is not a formal fallacy to act as if induction is induction? What is it then?
It has to be a fallacy of some sort.

Also, I don't do that, so why are we arguing.

Beats me as far as that issue goes.

"For a person to even attempt to attack the Bible with "science" they have to commit this fallacy."

I wouldn;t agree. I would say that they can't *philosophically* account for it but if they say that the conclusions are not necessary then they could say that the Bible is *probably* untrue.

But what does that mean? If they assume uniformitarianism, if they assume their sample is complete etc. (I could go on with the assumptions)
then they can say that the Bible is "probably" untrue. But that is a lot of question begging. You really cant attack God unless you attempt to play on his level. Otherwise it is just nonsense.

But, they can;t account for probability. So, they still don't have a leg to stand on but their not committing a "formal fallacy."

I would need to see more of how they are not attempting to make a deductive statement. For even when you say I have a probability of 52%, that God is not there, then at a certain level, you are saying that some X is true without a doubt. Now you may have some Y and Z that are kinda iffy.

"I believe that is all we need in order to live successful lives and have dominion. We do our best and when we make mistakes (or learn about past mistakes) then we make changes and move on again."

CT, can you tell me how instrumentialism is consistant with a Christian worldview?

Now that is an interesting question. I would ask that you give me some reason that you believe that it is inconsistent. I think realism just is unnecessary and that God there are certain things that God does not reveal to us.

CT