Originally Posted by Mahratta

I don't think you're addressing my point. Of course it doesn't matter 'to the argument', so to speak. Scientific thought holds an air of authority on reality - more than, say, literature, music, metaphysics, etc. So there's only really "a point" in applying these methods to science (and similar 'explanatory disciplines').

Second, you're assuming that Goedel's methods, which are the crux of this argument, can be applied to an arbitrary language - something I never said was the case, and indeed something I doubt can be the case given our present paradigm in cognitive science and artificial intelligence.

You used Godel's incompleteness theorems in analogy with biology, saying that since the easily described logic of mathematic is inherently not provable, then neither is the logic of biology. Like you say, the argument can be extended to similarly cast doubt on any of the 'explanatory disciplines.' Are you now saying that science should be doubted, but knowledge gained without science shouldn't be doubted?

I think disciplines with less formality would actually be worthy of more doubt, because like you said, "the point of formalism is to distance us from the shakiness of intuitive inductive reasoning." And sure, there is no point in accusing a discipline of not being able to find absolute truths when it isn't trying to find absolute truths, but the basic logic still follows.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

My point is that its broadness can't possibly have an adverse impact on the argument - in order for something to be true of all scientific thought, it has to be true of any arbitrary example. Unless we find a medium of expression for scientific thought that does not rely on a first-order logic while maintaining social standards of 'rigour', we'll always have to keep falling back on metaphysical speculations on intuition.

In talking strictly about evolution, the argument's lack of specificity does have a negative impact, because it's really an argument about philosophy, not evolution. You're not explaining to the OP why they should doubt evolution, you are explaining that they should doubt all science, including theories contrary to evolution. That's a net gain of zero doubt on evolution.

Originally Posted by Rudiger

You used Godel's incompleteness theorems in analogy with biology, saying that since the easily described logic of mathematic is inherently not provable, then neither is the logic of biology.

Be careful when you use the term 'logic' generally, because I think that may be the cause of some confusion. When I say 'logic', I mean (quite strictly) 'formalist logic' - it's the dominant logical paradigm right now, and it's open to as much fluctuation as scientific paradigms. Because of this, these methods work only for formal languages. Feasibility is a minor note, because there really isn't a pressing need to apply similar ideas to non-scientific sorts of thought, as I'll further explain.

In talking strictly about evolution, the argument's lack of specificity does have a negative impact, because it's really an argument about philosophy, not evolution. You're not explaining to the OP why they should doubt evolution, you are explaining that they should doubt all science, including theories contrary to evolution. That's a net gain of zero doubt on evolution.

The topic evolved to one about the acceptability of denying evolution as a biologist, and this is the topic I've been addressing. This is not the same situation as the one you portrayed in the above paragraph.
I've explained that one should doubt the scientific argument in the same way as one doubts the sociological argument, the historical argument, the religious argument, etc. There's no special validity to the scientific argument. With that in mind, you should see that my posts are not meant to be anti-evolution, but to be anti-anti-anti-evolution, so to speak.
Even if doubt can be measured on some sort of linear scale as you imply, my goal wasn't to "gain points" for the anti-evolution side. It was more to "defend" against the 'argument by higher validity' that was being used quite a bit.

Like you say, the argument can be extended to similarly cast doubt on any of the 'explanatory disciplines.' Are you now saying that science should be doubted, but knowledge gained without science shouldn't be doubted?

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. In fact, I'm saying the opposite about 'knowledge' - that any knowledge gained from science isn't knowledge about the world as it is, but knowledge about the world as we understand it (that is, scientifically), and there's nothing necessarily binding us to accept any more than that.

I think disciplines with less formality would actually be worthy of more doubt, because like you said, "the point of formalism is to distance us from the shakiness of intuitive inductive reasoning." And sure, there is no point in accusing a discipline of not being able to find absolute truths when it isn't trying to find absolute truths, but the basic logic still follows.

I don't know about how 'worthy of doubt' formality makes a discipline (I think the general social consensus agrees with you), but you seem to have hit the nail on the head at the end. Sure, we can try to apply these mechanisms to metaphysics - but you're not under the impression that metaphysics gives concrete, true statements about the state of the world, so even if I could apply Goedel's method to metaphysical statements (something I can't do), there's no need for me to do it. You clearly regard science as a more valid form of thought than fairy-tale or myth or poetry, so it makes sense to show that such a validity cannot possibly be rationally justified.

There's nothing wrong with believing that science has a sort of 'higher validity' than many other fields when it comes to describing the world as it is (I personally believe this) - but as long as the scientific method uses formal logic as a rational backbone, there will be no way to justify this belief.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

I've explained that one should doubt the scientific argument in the same way as one doubts the sociological argument, the historical argument, the religious argument, etc. There's no special validity to the scientific argument. With that in mind, you should see that my posts are not meant to be anti-evolution, but to be anti-anti-anti-evolution, so to speak.
Even if doubt can be measured on some sort of linear scale as you imply, my goal wasn't to "gain points" for the anti-evolution side. It was more to "defend" against the 'argument by higher validity' that was being used quite a bit.

I was being a bit facetious talking about a 'net gain' in doubt; I do realize it's ridiculous to attempt to quantify something like that.




I'll cautiously concede that you're correct in your defense against 'arguments of higher validity.' Frankly, I wish I was educated on the subject so I could discuss it better. And you're completely correct, I do regard science as the most valid way of revealing knowledge, and I doubt I'll ever be able to change that. Even if what you say is true, it only shows the lack of provability, and I'll hold out hope about the veracity of my beliefs.

I'll admit that I find it loathsome to discuss science in a way that makes it seem as if "leaps of faith" are involved. At least the leaps are in the very fundamentals of our use of logic. And I still think that once those leaps are made, the best of our knowledge (flawed that it may be) points towards evolution.

Regardless, I enjoyed the information and discussion, so thank you!

Biology without evolution? ..wtfamireading.

Don't forget to take physics with out gravity.

Originally Posted by lilyyy

Biology without evolution? ..wtfamireading.

Don't forget to take physics with out gravity.

Or masturbating without watching porno.

what i find more irritating than religious zealots, are ppl that try to logic god into scientific arguments, like: "who do you think started the big bang?", or "its because of him that we can even understand how the world works"

listen bud, at the end of the day, believing in god means you share the notion that god created adam and eve the first two ppl on earth, and personally I don't think I've heard anything more absurd

Originally Posted by SydVicious

what i find more irritating than religious zealots, are ppl that try to logic god into scientific arguments, like: "who do you think started the big bang?", or "its because of him that we can even understand how the world works"

First of all, I've never heard 'logic' used as a verb, so well done with the pioneer-work. Secondly, I don't think that God can be 'logicized' into a scientific argument, because the purpose of science is to explain phenomena - and nothing more than that. So while a scientific metaphysics exists, it's not the sort of 'nonsense' (here I don't mean that in a demeaning way - I merely mean 'not sense-perceptible') we see in religious arguments.

listen bud, at the end of the day, believing in god means you share the notion that god created adam and eve the first two ppl on earth

That's unsubstantiated rubbish.

Originally Posted by lilyyy

Biology without evolution? ..wtfamireading.

Don't forget to take physics with out gravity.

Both evolution and gravity are of great importance in their respective fields, but remember that our empirical paradigms have always changed, and will probably continue to change (reasoning inductively - funnily enough, precisely the same sort of natural reason that underlies scientific observation). Theoretical interpretations like natural selection and general relativity (which you seem to be muddling up with the empirical ideas) are thus put on a degree of uncertainty a priori.

In other words, that's not a particularly ridiculous universe to imagine. I don't imagine it, but I can see why I may be wrong in my choice not to.

It's funny, most people think that evolution is about humans and monkeys sharing a common ancestor. No this is a result of evolution but it's not what the theory of evolution is about.

The MAIN proof of evolution is the evolution of bacterias. Why ? Because we can see it in real time.

Originally Posted by Rudiger

Even if what you say is true, it only shows the lack of provability, and I'll hold out hope about the veracity of my beliefs.

I'll admit that I find it loathsome to discuss science in a way that makes it seem as if "leaps of faith" are involved. At least the leaps are in the very fundamentals of our use of logic. And I still think that once those leaps are made, the best of our knowledge (flawed that it may be) points towards evolution.

I'm hoping to rekindle our discussion here, and I think I overlooked an important point of yours (I didn't notice it until my second reading, apologies).

I think your hope for the higher validity of particular forms of reasoning isn't irrational, despite what my previous posts seem to imply, for a somewhat subtle reason. This is because our logic isn't transcendental (sorry for the jargon). Let me flesh this out a bit - because of the results I mentioned earlier - that is, the incompleteness theorems and so on - we have no way of logically confirming (or denying) natural selection as a theoretical construct and evolution as an empirical generalization.

This, however, doesn't mean that natural selection or evolution are not 'higher truths', so to speak. What it does mean, however, is that if we accept first-order logic to be our primary means of preserving truth in language, then we have no way of confirming or denying such theories. Conversely (or maybe I should say 'contrapositively'!) if our theoretical constructs are decidable, then they are not phrased in the language of first-order logic.

The choice of logic is an issue which I find particularly interesting, and I think your point is a very good one. Personally, I've got some issues with the first-order logic - the so-called "intuitionist arguments" over the rule of double-negation and the law of the excluded middle. One produces the other, and both assert that in our formal language, either something is the case or it's not the case. In other words, truth is considered to be Boolean valued in our system.

In natural systems this is ridiculous, of course, but after a bit of consideration, I don't think it's ridiculous (at least not explicitly so) in formal systems. Still, I don't think that the intuitionist arguments have been taken seriously by many in the mathematical and scientific communities, and thus I find myself in the position of being a bit skeptical about the very basis which I used to illustrate and justify skepticism about evolution!

Originally Posted by lilyyy

Biology without evolution? ..wtfamireading.

Don't forget to take physics with out gravity.

lol this is a pretty epic post

The law of the excluded middle and quantum physics are not fond of each other...

anyone who believes 2 of all the millions of species in this world, climbed up onto noahs ark, I feel verrrry verry sorry for you.

Originally Posted by SydVicious

anyone who believes 2 of all the millions of species in this world, climbed up onto noahs ark, I feel verrrry verry sorry for you.

dude, you're obsessed, let it go lol

Originally Posted by Icecream

The law of the excluded middle and quantum physics are not fond of another...

Perhaps that is the case, but unfortunately quantum logic doesn't get us very far. I should have been more specific when I defined what the domain of standard use of first-order logic is - I don't really think it's considered to be of particular interest and explanatory power when it comes to observed phenomena. I'm more interested in its use for classifying explanations, so to speak. Good example anyway, though.