Originally posted by Atlantis001
Probably you don´t even know what I am talking about. Before you start judging read our discussion to understand my point, or at least read something about subject(epistemology in this case) instead of just give the most simplistic and dumb interpretation.
Your standards are too high. 😆
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I think it was on this thread that we were discussing it before.I agree that science is usually more accurate than religion, and I don´t think blind faith is a valid way of justification. But what I am saying is that logic or reason does not justifies why should scientific evidence be preferable. It independs of our opinions about science, personally I tend to agree more with science. Maybe faith is not a good word to use, but lets say intuition then, it is our intuition who justify science. I agree with you that there is a difference between faith and science, but it is our intuition that creates this distinction, not logic and reason. I mean.... this distinction, and the validity of the scientific method is not a logic inference, its not a conclusion, or a deduction, it is an assumption made valid with the use of intuition.
Take a look at epistemology, see justification of a belief... justification is the criteria you use to prove things, and empiricism is a BELIEF in a certain method of justification. You cannot self justify it. Beliefs need to be believed. Not that it makes science senseless as I already said, but it needs that you execute the action of "choosing to believe" in that.
The justification for belief in reason and logic is how it applies to our lives, our past, and our future. Stop for a second and look down at the keyboard: you know what that keyboard does. You know how to operate it. You may even know what materials it's made out of, where the plugins are, etc. You may have letters and symbols on the keyboard which you can interpret ashaving meaning. Now, look at the situation this way....
Your entire life you've used reason in a primitive sense, everyday. You use the most basic forms of reason in everything. You get up in the morning and head for the kitchen. Why? Because there's food there. How can you know that? Well, you can infer that food would remain in your kitchen because someone or yourself put it there, and you lock your doors at night and there's no likely way your brother and dad can eat all the food in under a week, so you can make the claim that there is indeed food in that kitchen. You did not have to consult a preconceived notion of faith to know this. You did not have to stop and try and reach this knowledge through the divine. You reasoned that food would be in the kitchen. And, to the best of your ability and current knowledge, you were correct. There could be the rare case of the house being broken into and all the food being stolen, but this isn't a failing in your reasonable take on the situation; it's just a lack of up to date or complete knowledge. The rational process isn't in error. Hell, you use it without even thinking.
Take one step back. You were hungry when you woke up. How did you know what to do? Well, obviously you've had previous experience with hunger before. You know how to deal with it. You recognize the hunger pangs, the desire for food. You understand why you have this hunger. And you immediately think of ways to deal with it.
Did you ever at any point have to stop and believe in what you were doing? Did you ever have to reaffirm your belief in this process? No, because the belief in logic was the foundation for everything else. Logic is the foundation for all your judgments and decisions. So long as you made sure your conclusions were properly reached (And not fallacy-ridden) and the information is correct, your rational assumptions would most likely be true. Note that it can't be 100% true to assume there is food in the kitchen, because that would require knowledge of ALL variables. But still, the tool exists and works. With it, we make all our decisions (hopefully the right way), and craft our inventions. Logic and reasoning helped Edison make the lightbulb; not faith in something contrary to his common sense and knowledge like random light spirits would inhabit the bulb if he used a special material.
So you cannot compare belief in reason on the same level as belief in religion; the former is the basis for all human rational thought, and the latter is a belief in information or reality contrary to the rational process.
Originally posted by Wesker
The justification for belief in reason and logic is how it applies to our lives, our past, and our future. Stop for a second and look down at the keyboard: you know what that keyboard does. You know how to operate it. You may even know what materials it's made out of, where the plugins are, etc. You may have letters and symbols on the keyboard which you can interpret ashaving meaning. Now, look at the situation this way....Your entire life you've used reason in a primitive sense, everyday. You use the most basic forms of reason in everything. You get up in the morning and head for the kitchen. Why? Because there's food there. How can you know that? Well, you can infer that food would remain in your kitchen because someone or yourself put it there, and you lock your doors at night and there's no likely way your brother and dad can eat all the food in under a week, so you can make the claim that there is indeed food in that kitchen. You did not have to consult a preconceived notion of faith to know this. You did not have to stop and try and reach this knowledge through the divine. You reasoned that food would be in the kitchen. And, to the best of your ability and current knowledge, you were correct. There could be the rare case of the house being broken into and all the food being stolen, but this isn't a failing in your reasonable take on the situation; it's just a lack of up to date or complete knowledge. The rational process isn't in error. Hell, you use it without even thinking.
Take one step back. You were hungry when you woke up. How did you know what to do? Well, obviously you've had previous experience with hunger before. You know how to deal with it. You recognize the hunger pangs, the desire for food. You understand why you have this hunger. And you immediately think of ways to deal with it.
Did you ever at any point have to stop and believe in what you were doing? Did you ever have to reaffirm your belief in this process? No, because the belief in logic was the foundation for everything else. Logic is the foundation for all your judgments and decisions. So long as you made sure your conclusions were properly reached (And not fallacy-ridden) and the information is correct, your rational assumptions would most likely be true. Note that it can't be 100% true to assume there is food in the kitchen, because that would require knowledge of ALL variables. But still, the tool exists and works. With it, we make all our decisions (hopefully the right way), and craft our inventions. Logic and reasoning helped Edison make the lightbulb; not faith in something contrary to his common sense and knowledge like random light spirits would inhabit the bulb if he used a special material.
So you cannot compare belief in reason on the same level as belief in religion; the former is the basis for all human rational thought, and the latter is a belief in information or reality contrary to the rational process.
So I think we agree that reason need to be believed, that is the only thing I was saying. We are just comparing beliefs.
Not that its all senseless since they are beliefs, maybe we confused things since we associate belief to faith, or to blindy believing in something without thinking, but it is not in that sense I am using the word belief.
I agree that logic is very useful, and I like logic and science very much. But if logic is better than faith, it is intuition who makes that distinction. We cannot logically infer logic.
Originally posted by Femi32
Here's a website if anybody is interested
Originally posted by Femi32
Erm... when are you going to get the hint that the Bible doesn't validify creationism unless you totally buy into it. I don't. How do you intend to change or influence my objective, rational approach with your beliefs and book? That's like a capitalist asking me why I support socialism and then I just post a link to www.marxruleztehnoobs.com. In that hypothetical scenario, I should be able to provide convincing arguments and points, coupled with factual evidence and/or good reasoning or the capitalist has absolutely NO motivation to take me seriously. In another thread I lectured xyz revolution for doing the same thing. My motto is: prove up or shut up.
Atlantis001, to your point: I was trying to emphasize that logic and reasoning are key tools of human understanding. If someone is not rational, they cannot be dealt with. Likewise, animals do not apply higher rational thought. That's why they don't entertain abstractions such as morals or goals beyond the next meal. To claim that belief in reason is anything other than a prerequisite for learning and understanding is really undercutting its use in human life. Faith, or religious belief, could be argued to be a part of the human psyche. It can be argued to have positive effects on the mindset. But it cannot produce knowledge or truths about the outside world any more than wishing on a star changes reality. Therefore, reason >>>> faith.
Originally posted by Wesker
Atlantis001, to your point: I was trying to emphasize that logic and reasoning are key tools of human understanding. If someone is not rational, they cannot be dealt with. Likewise, animals do not apply higher rational thought. That's why they don't entertain abstractions such as morals or goals beyond the next meal. To claim that belief in reason is anything other than a prerequisite for learning and understanding is really undercutting its use in human life. Faith, or religious belief, could be argued to be a part of the human psyche. It can be argued to have positive effects on the mindset. But it cannot produce knowledge or truths about the outside world any more than wishing on a star changes reality. Therefore, reason >>>> faith.
I agree logic is very useful and grants us knowledge about the outside world. But logic is created by an intuitive thinking, always when we use it we are using something that is trusted by intuition alone. So we cannot eliminate intuition´s role in the problem. We needed to make use of it to grant logic its own validity. Logic cannot be valid by itself alone. Intuition was used in the process.
Anyway, I do not agree that religion in the way it is a good way to acquire knowledge of the universe, I don´t like these things like creationism and many other aspects of religious doctrine, religion is very limitated in its own field.
To say that logic brings knowledge is to say that intuition brings knowledge, and if intuition brings knowledge, it can bring other kinds of knowledge too. Logic is a consequence of intuition, but there could be other kinds of knowledge that come from it as well.
Again, I think you miss the point; where logic rises well above intuition is because it works and it has repeatability. It's also a learned mental tool; babies don't pop out of the womb and go A + B >C If A then C, etc.
Second, you're again mucking up the very definition:
in·tu·i·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-shn, -ty-)
n.
The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.
Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.
So how logic can be arrived from intuition I couldn't begin to guess. So your ideas are again wrong.
I agree logic is very useful and grants us knowledge about the outside world. But logic is created by an intuitive thinking, always when we use it we are using something that is trusted by intuition alone. So we cannot eliminate intuition´s role in the problem. We needed to make use of it to grant logic its own validity. Logic cannot be valid by itself alone. Intuition was used in the process.
The difference is that logic is from the concretely perceived: the observed and the deduced.
Intuition plays little role. You can get a robot, with only mathematical algorithms, to walk down stairs. How does the robot know it exists? It's not that the robot believes it exists, or that he is intuitive enough to show that it exists. He can walk down stairs because of his basic structure allows him to perceive, he observes the stairs, the algorithm and programming tells him how to respond. No belief required.
Observation + Deduction != Intuition and Faith.
Anyway, I do not agree that religion in the way it is a good way to acquire knowledge of the universe, I don´t like these things like creationism and many other aspects of religious doctrine, religion is very limitated in its own field.To say that logic brings knowledge is to say that intuition brings knowledge, and if intuition brings knowledge, it can bring other kinds of knowledge too. Logic is a consequence of intuition, but there could be other kinds of knowledge that come from it as well.
Again, intuition is the congitive understanding without flawless logic. So how exactly are you comparing the two? What is your basis here?
Originally posted by Wesker
Again, I think you miss the point; where logic rises well above intuition is because it works and it has repeatability. It's also a learned mental tool; babies don't pop out of the womb and go A + B >C If A then C, etc.Second, you're again mucking up the very definition:
[b]in·tu·i·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-shn, -ty-)
n.The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.
Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.
So how logic can be arrived from intuition I couldn't begin to guess. So your ideas are again wrong. [/B]
By what you have said in a previous post : "So you cannot compare belief in reason on the same level as belief in religion", "No, because the belief in logic was the foundation for everything else"... I implied that you have agreed that reason, and logic are indeed a belief. If it is true it is contradictory to say that they are a belief, and that they did not rise from intuition at the same time. Beliefs are intuitions.
If its not true then lets be clear and simple about some aspects of logic then:
Logic has axioms, and that is basic knowledge. Now, what are axioms ? Here is the definition for them :
In epistemology, an axiom is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest, from which other knowledge is built up.
So basically axioms are self evident truths, and what means logic makes use of self evident truths. These axioms cannot be proved they are just defined as they are, thats why they are self evident truths. Any mathematician will agree with that. Now take a look at the definition of self evident truth :
In epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.
That means that axioms are not proved. Axioms of logic are the foundation of logic, they define what logic is, and if they can´t be proved that means that logic can´t be proved.
Something that can´t be proved can´t be said to be correct, unless you say that, for example, intuition is a valid way for justifying knowledge, and logic is justified by intuition.
Logic cannot prove itself, and that is a fact, there is even a theorem called "incompleteness theorem" that states that mathematical logic is either contradictory or incomplete, in the sense it cannot prove its own consistence. You can logically reach the conclusion that logic is not self provable, and if its not self provable that means intuition played a role in it, that is called mathematical intuition. I know that because I study that in college, I am a physicist.. or at least I intend to be. There are many scientists who defend this point.
Originally posted by Illustrious
The difference is that logic is from the concretely perceived: the observed and the deduced.Intuition plays little role. You can get a robot, with only mathematical algorithms, to walk down stairs. How does the robot know it exists? It's not that the robot believes it exists, or that he is intuitive enough to show that it exists. He can walk down stairs because of his basic structure allows him to perceive, he observes the stairs, the algorithm and programming tells him how to respond. No belief required.
Observation + Deduction != Intuition and Faith.
I agree that the process of logic is very different from the way intuition works. I not saying that intuition is used in logic in the way you show in the robot example. It is not needed at all, algorithyms work without the use of intuition, but I arguing that intuition is need in the very foundation of logic. Logic in its principle needs to start from some propositions that are "assumed" to be true, and not proved. If you assume that something is true without proving it is intuition that you are using.
Take a look at my previous post I explained it all in there.
Originally posted by Illustrious
Again, intuition is the congitive understanding without flawless logic. So how exactly are you comparing the two? What is your basis here?
In the way that logic is a concept born from that cognitive understanding that intuition is. Logic is created by intuition. Intuition is a process that is independent of logic, but logic is created by intuition. Logic is a particular use of our intuition. A particular point of view of intuition.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Probably you don´t even know what I am talking about. Before you start judging read our discussion to understand my point, or at least read something about subject(epistemology in this case) instead of just give the most simplistic and dumb interpretation.
I read the thread before I even posted, and no, I didn't get what the hell you were trying to say, because it makes no sense at all. It's completely contradictory. The ONLY reason to believe science is through repeatable logic and reasoning.
"NO! Screw your logic! I'm just going to make shit up and believe it in faith!"
See Wesker's posts for more reasons why your statement is utter crap, he's doing a pretty good job of nullifying your entire argument.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
In the way that logic is a concept born from that cognitive understanding that intuition is. Logic is created by intuition. Intuition is a process that is independent of logic, but logic is created by intuition. Logic is a particular use of our intuition. A particular point of view of intuition.
How the hell do you get that logic is created by intuition? Logic is created through experience and understanding. How you equate that with intuition, I have no clue.
How old are you? have you taken any college science courses?
I recommend psychology.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hey xyz, you are quite the *******, aren't you? What about proving Evolution for a change? Not possible? All right then...
Science has been there and done that.
People say it's unproven because we haven't found a missing piece for human's evolution, but evolution at it's core theory is provable even by you.
Next time you have a roach problem, try using the same insectacide over and over again. Even if it works the first couple of times, I bet if you keep using it you'll have a roach problem again.
Originally posted by Bardock42you ****ing moron. Let me introduce you to this thread: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t397171.html so you're the @sshole.
Hey xyz, you are quite the *******, aren't you? What about proving Evolution for a change? Not possible? All right then...
@sshole. 😐