I Am Fascinated By Science, Religion, and Philosophy

@hippyjoe1955 The day you answer the simple questions I asked you about the very basics of logic, math and science, yes chuckle.
Till now, you only showed a perserverant ignorance.

@CharlieZ What simple questions have you ever asked? I have never read them or thought you were serious in asking them.

@hippyjoe1955 You have forgotten them. Ok.
To be fair, I´ll find them and ask them to you again.
Let´s see what we get of it.

@CharlieZ OK. I guess they either got lost in all the other noise on SW or else I didn't think they were serious. Don't know which since I don't remember them.

@hippyjoe1955 As is difficult to find the same thread, I´ll ask it as I remember it, again.
Of course it´s a serious one. A basic concept in the basis of Mathematical Logic.
No first year studdent of university math would approve if can´t answer this.
And Hipppy, if you don´t remember it, or was done to your pal here, don´t worry, it´s not a problem.
You say you know Logic. Answer it as if were asked for the first time to you.

Please, tell, what is the meaning of "Logic haves no ontological commitment" and so is said to be Formal?
For this, please, use as example a Modus Ponens, one of the oldest and well known resources of logic.

@CharlieZ If evolution is true then there will be variety in species.
There is evolution therefore there is variety in species.

@hippyjoe1955 Is that your answer to my question Hippy?
You´ve not said why logic have no ontological committment and so is formal.
Any well formed silogism will show it.
May you do it, please? It´s basic for the ones who claim to know what logic is.
I´ll help you with a little clue: the answer separates strict logic from rethorics.

@CharlieZ You asked for an example not a dissertation about it. Logic seems to escape you even as you like to use terms many on here have no idea about. Let me explain in layman's terms. There are two options. You must choose on based on the evidence provided. One set of evidence is based on false assumptions and the evidence is mere supposition. Finding a fossil of a dead animal belonging to an extinct animal does not imply there is evolution involved. It simply means there is a rock like substance we perceive as being part of a long dead animal. Logic will not take it any farther no matter how you dress it up and use ontological constructs or commitments. It is simply something left behind. We can guess and we can do all kinds of nonsense if we want but our foolishness is not a proof. It is at best a guess and most likely it is the result of our underlying prejudice.

@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, my question, this time, is not about Evolution.
What means not ontological commitment and so formal?
That logic is abstract from the material reality and it´s evidences.

In Math Logic (the rethorical one is only noise) THIS is a valid silogism:

All dogs have wings.
Pluto is a dog.
Pluto have wings.

Note, please:

It doesn´t matter at all that dogs have no wings and that Pluto is only a cartoon character and is inexistent as a dog.

THAT´s Logic (not rethoric).
So needed by Science but never enough to support Science.

If you know logic and I don´t, please tell me WHY I can say this according to what other mathematicians, all of them, recognize AND you could not?

I was not asking to prove Godel Theorems in 15 lines of plain language (I can do it).
Was something both simple and a must to know.

@CharlieZ I'm not trying to prove anything including the minutia of logic formal or otherwise. The discussion before us is what does the evidence before us indicate. Some people look at a fossil and assume that it indicates evolution. The logic isn't there since it can not be duplicated or otherwise proven. I look at the incredible complexity of the form and function of the simplest life forms and function including the literal impossibility of the right kinds of building blocks being in exactly the right amount at exactly the right time in exactly the right formula and form into exactly the right order in the DNA and other parts of the single cell. It is statistically impossible. The odd against such an event taking place is magnitudes greater than the assumed number of atoms in the universe. Now if you want to play silly word games then knock yourself out. It seems you are simply trying to obfuscate the discussion with basic trivia about formal logic. Sorry old sod but no sale. Lets stick to the topic at hand rather than get off into the weeds.

@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, if I made some kind´t know of TJ with the purpose of this specific thread, I appologize.
My intervención was solely triggered by your asserts that someone ignores Logic (while you know it).
You use to do it frequently.
And I don´t know how much Logic really know each one.
But by all evidence whenever you write, you don´t.
Two expressions of yours show it, if the previous was not enough:
- "...the minutia of logic"
What I´ve said is in the foundations of Logic, not trivial.

- "...of logic formal or otherwise"
There is no other Logic than Formal Logic.
The rethorical "common sense reasoning" one is not Logic at all.

That said, I´ll not stay for the main purpose of this tread.
But, please, humble yourself a bit and don´t criticize others saying that they don´t know (Logic) what evidently YOU DON´T.

Have a good night all of you.

@CharlieZ The point is the person I said wasn't being logical was not being logical formal or informal. There were vast assumptions based on mere prejudice and not evidence. You have the mistaken idea that logic is a formal course in school. It is not. If you soak a piece of wood in water it is illogical to expect to be able to set it on fire with a single match. You don't need a course in logic to understand that. As I said before it is not logical to look at a fossil and assume that it indicates evolution. The best you can say of it is that it might indicate a long dead animal of a long extinct species. As my old physics prof used to say. The best we can ever say is 'science would seem to indicate'. It does not prove as newer evidence may soon indicate the opposite. Such is the case with Darwin. Further evidence indicates otherwise.

@hippyjoe1955 Logic is not "a formal course in school"
Is a well defined part of Mathematics.
And if it´s not formal, abstract, it´s not Logic at all.
That´s not wrong, is what mathematicians work on, no doubt.
Reasonability on plain language is not Logic. Plausibility (having an appearance of truth or reason) is not Logic. Because they are not strict enough.

"If you soak a piece of wood in water it is illogical to expect to be able to set it on fire with a single match"
That may be truth by experience and because the laws of Physics. The expression "it is illogical" is not Logic. It´s a call to "common sense" wich is far to be Logic.
So, if you say you know Logic, avoid it.

In the other hand, I agree with: " The best we can ever say is 'science would seem to indicate'. It does not prove as newer evidence may soon indicate the opposite."

But as the history of Science shows, to be scientifically reliable, "the opposite" of what Science says now will come FROM inside Science. And not from outside it.

You got me curious, anyhow.
If I understood, you say that "Further evidence indicates otherwise" (to the opposite of Evolution)

Interesting.
May you provide us a link to where such evidence was published?
As a serious research conducted by the scientific community and published the same way?
By not confessional academic institutions? (It doesn´t matter the personal faith of the individual scientists or if don´t believe: irrelevant)

I stay waiting for serious (as defined above) news from you.
If those news don´t meet all those quality criteria, don´t even bother to bring them, please.

@CharlieZ Mathematics claims all kinds of things Doesn't make it so. Not long ago I paraphrased a quote of Fredric Hoyle. There is lots of top of their field professors and experts who admit that evolution is not the answer. Unfortunately the 'scientific' community has a nasty habit of dismissing anyone who disagrees with it. It is implied in your query. Anyone who professes a Christian faith is instantly not to be trusted since (s)he has an agenda. Well look at that the evolutionists have a similar agenda. The key to a greater understanding is looking at as much information as possible regardless of what we might think is an agenda. I was a devout atheist design engineer working on processes to better release oil from dirt. My little role was part of a huge program that built huge plants to do that simple task. The search for right metals and temperatures and chemicals and pressure was massive consuming huge amounts of capital and time and making engineering firms very wealthy. As I am involved in this I happened across an article in a journal that was talking about the incredible complexity of a single cell. It struck me how the simple task we were struggling to perfect (the struggle is continuing BTW) was so surpassed by a simple cell. As time has gone on and I have followed the debate from a distance I am even more amazed. The things a single celled life form is doing is far far far beyond anything we humans can duplicate or even imagine duplicating. Design is the logical explanation not blind chance and happenstance as the evolutionists want us to believe. There are lots of articles that I have read over the year but to be honest I have never cataloged or even kept a copy of them. I read them in my spare time when the mood strikes and they fall to hand. I no longer do design work and so I occupy my time with much more pressing issues than reading reading scientific journals.

@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, you don´t understand what I´ve said in at least one point, that is:
When I said "not confessional academic institutions" I meant intitutions whose explicit purposes are to promote or support EITHER religión OR atheism.
The purpose of Science is not tied to NO other purpose that the better descripition of the natural material universe.
Those who use Science as a fulcrum for BOTH approve OR dissaprove religious matters are NOT doing Science for NEITHER side. Both betray Science.
That´s what I´ve said that "It doesn´t matter the personal faith of the individual scientists or if don´t believe: irrelevant"
No matter if they are the best, when they say so YES or they say NO to faith related matters, Science is out of the ring, even if they are scientists WHEN and WHILE they do Science (and only).
As you may know, a lot of scientists, if not the mayority, have religious faiths.
But, SAME ones, when regarding the nature of the Universe, IF doing Science and while they do it, do not make assertions based on their faith related to Science matters.
SAME ones, largely most of them support Evolution.
But let´s imagine that some research, a serious one (wich means no religious nor atheist agenda involved at all) points against Evolution.
It never happened (all claims about are tainted by philosophical assumptions alien to Science)-
But if some day it happens, it will be done by scientists doing secular Science, which means Science, "NO matter the personal faith of the individual scientists" nor if they are atheists.

To your saying "Design is the logical explanation" I say: again you are not using "logical" as logic is. Not as used by mathematicians by neither by scientists. So, for my use, discarded. Not rigurous enough, mere rethorics.

So again, if you have a link to those evidences against Evolution from solely Scientific sources, not confessional from neither side, please share them.

If not, please, avoid saying that they are scientific evidences, because in that case they are not.
As please, avoid saying that something merely plausible is logic, when it´s not.

Have a good night.

@CharlieZ You have got to be joking. Humans are not that pure. The fact is that there is a great divide that can not be spanned. The minute one posits that there is ID the other side derides that person as being a religious hack. The only reason I came across the idea when I was doing the work I was doing is because we were told to read both conventional and unconventional theories as part of our research. In such one publication was the theory that life forms were too complex to have evolved. As an evolutionist at the time I scoffed at the idea but for some reason the concept kept rolling around in my head and eventually I came to accept the possibility of such a thing actually being true. From there on my life wasn't real pretty. I had to face some very fundamental crisis. If ID was true..... However back to the point that science is not pure but rather agenda driven. Ask anyone who has ever said that ID is likely and immediately that person becomes a pariah in polite company. Their funding is pulled and their opinion is no longer taken into account. If you want to find out about ID there is a lot of information available. If you have an open mind you can find it and read it and if your mind is sufficiently open you can entertain the possibility that it is indeed true. Good luck on your search.

@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, of course no one human activity is "pure", even if that word means really something.
But the divide you reffer to is not worth of being the core axis of nothing at all.
In my own view, but is personal:

- Scientist (as such and not as private persons) should avoid to asert about faith: they do it badly.
- Science should do it´s job in describing, with a secular worldview, the natural world as it is: It do it well, quite better than the religious narratives.

- Religions should promote an ethical approach to human relationships. Sincerely, it´s more a hope than what I see them doing.

- Religions should avoid to describe the world in supernatural ways when the matters involved are also matters of Science: Science does it better and religions do it quite bad.

But there is another source of dissagreement between us.
You don´t trust a lot the scientific community and I, who´ve been inside it for a life, feel that scientists (with isolated examples against) are honest and trustable people.
You trust a lot some, at least one, religious practice community.
I don´t.

@CharlieZ Should????? Seriously? If you have a huge ego and a lot of research grants and want your opinion heard you toe the party line. If you doubt that look at someone like Behe who was top of his field until he became associated with ID and now is only welcome on the religious side of the debate. Even my mention of his name will bring snorts of derision from some of the flat earth evolutionists on this board.

@hippyjoe1955 I realy don´t debate on individuals, no matter the good they may be.
As counter examples (not that means something, but in your terms, not mine):

Both Christian De Duve and Stephen Jay Gould were deeply religious, lifetime.
And they both, as scientists, supported Evolution with bold contributions to it.
In the other hand, Willie Dembski was reputed as a not bad mathematician.
But the rejection of his fictional work based on the NFL Theorems (the good ones by Wolpert & Macready) was not at all cos Dembski faith.
It was solely because both Dembski´s Math and its attribution to Biology are BAAAADLY erroneous.
I, myself, can say it knowing about.

But I´ll left aside individuals.
No religious account of Nature given from a religious perspective (not the Dembski´s, not the Behe´s one, no other I personlally know) is good one.
On the material world Science one is better.

Which doesn´t mean I´ll become an atheist.
As MOST of cases of scientists can tell, the very axis: To have faith = ID vs. to support Evolution = atheism, is a bad formulated divide, if not a joke.

@CharlieZ The point I am making and will continue to make is that there are very few that are honest and open minded enough to change their positions given evidence to the contrary. Materialism (evolution) is a religion not science just as much if not more that ID is considered as Christianity in a lab coat.

@hippyjoe1955 Sorry, we dissagree once more.

@CharlieZ Free people are free to disagree. I was talking to a friend of mine who is doing medical research. She tells me that when she is asked by her colleagues she couches her answer in terms that they will accept as evolution. She gave up that idea long time ago and says that most of her insights have come from asking the question "how was this designed to work" not "evolution". Evolution set medicine back many years as they thought of some parts of the lymphatic 'system' as 'vestigial organs'. Thus I had my tonsils removed as a child. None of my kids or grandkids have had the same treatment even when their tonsils became inflamed. Funny that.

@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, I will say what am I disagreeing with, this recent time.
Your words "...that there are very few that are honest and open minded enough to change their positions given evidence to the contrary"
- If you are trying to portrate scientists, you failed. On the opposite, if there is something that identify the scientific attitude along history and actual practice is the availability to change minds given the serious evidence.
Serious evidence is the keyword.
There is evidence enough, not to grant at all that Evolution will be the last word, but with no doubt enough to say that, as it is today, it is the best available inference.
If this changes, as previously happened with other scientific views, it will probably become from Science as scientists define it.
They would certainly not take your "reasonability" as logic nor your examples as serious evidence. And they would be completely right about.

- If you are trying to portrate most of religious thinkers, you aimed. They are really close minded.
How much of them would change (given evidence) and say: Evolution is true?
Honestly, would you, given such (for you only hypotetical) evidence?

On the contrary of scientists, I can´t foresee them doing it. Can you?


The other point is that you are making some wrong assumptions on, both, the composition of the scientific community and also the christians / religious communities.
You equate Evolution with being atheist. This don´t verify, as most of supporters of Evolution have religious faiths, so outside as inside the scientific community.

You equate christianity with support to ID. This don´t verify, as worldwide, few christians feel they need to accept pseudoscience to believe in God.

Finally, you equate ID with Science ("ID is considered as Christianity in a lab coat"). This neither verify, since ID never (if you prefer so, yet, but till now still never) provided signs of being something near to Science.

I´ll later answer, if you don´t mind, what your friend told you.

@CharlieZ If you say so. I have never seen an open minded scientist yet that is willing to look at evidence contrary to his preconceived ideas. Said scientist has to be dragged kicking and screaming to even examine evidence contrary to their opinion. Their first reaction is derision. After many years when science has passed them by they may change their mind. Or may not. Some are too egotistical to ever admit they were misled or misinterpreted the evidence. One evolutionist tried to explain evolution by saying it happened by 'nudges'. He couldn't define or explain nudges but all his peers agreed with him in his peer reviewed paper. As an engineer if I were to try to explain why the pipe has to be this length or of this material using inexact language like nudges I would have lost my iron ring.

@hippyjoe1955 You are still aguing from your close personal experience.
If I do the same as you do, I wold say that I´ve been inside the scientific community for most of my life. And what I´ve seen is the opposite as your claims.

But personal experience is not at all enough (after all, Science is not personal individual witness but a collective and historical activity).

Rather, if you look at the last 400 years (the time in wich Science become what is Science), you may see how the collective view on same things have changed.
But, even so, keeping along centuries what identifies Science and can be recognized by the same criteria.
Even not a few of Scientists, the same ones as individuals, have accepted and even contributed to the end of their own pet theories and gave welcome to new ones.

That is, Hippy, documented History.


On the other hand, tell me if there is, as a general attitude, a correlate of this in the religious enviroments. Can you tell me if there is, asides irrelevant individual contingent examples?
Where happened that religious thoght have changed at the light of new evidence, beyond revelation as they interpret it, beyond authority and beyond the religious narrative?
Tell me, please. It´s far from evident.