technically speaking, logic and truth touch on different issues.
For instance
Today is saturday
I have brown shoes
therefore I am hungry
all three things are truthful
They are not logical however
When do you get a soul? & related questions.
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
For instance
Today is saturday
I have brown shoes
therefore I am hungry
all three things are truthful
They are not logical however
They are all logical.
Individually.
As you've arranged them (there's that formality again..) they do not form a valid argument.
Which is why it read as incoherent as it does.
-=-
Correct that it's not a logical argument yet it is as well not a valid argument. Such requires premises to be true or to reasonably be thought to be true.
-=-
therefore I am hungry is not truthful or logical.
therefore I am hungry is not truthful or logical.
I am sayng it does not need what you are claiming it does. You are the one adding the additional factor. The onus is on you.
Either put up or shut up.
You merely have to open your eyes to see the evidence.
Are you still going on about your belief that Santa Claus lives?
"God of the gaps" is a saying, LG, clearly not intended to be taken literally where it is clear that "God" has not been mentioned.
You really should recognise this literary technique by now.
It means that you are introducing an additional element to explain a shortfall in existing knowledge without waiting to see if that gap can be bridged without that element.
Prove that it is impossible to bridge the gap and you might be on to something. As you are keen on wiki, you might want to post your proof there?
Only if you don't understand the scientific process, which aims to do something in the future that can not be done now... and in doing so expand our knowledge-base.
You cold prove it if you could actually be bothered to try - so a poor example indeed.
But if this is your acceptance that it is not possible to prove that creation of artificial life is impossible then you must also realise that you accpet that the existence of your "soul" is now hanging on a future event.
er .... and collectively?
Or more specifically, the form of the argument is not logical since there is no connection between the premises and the conclusion.
BTW a valid argument has two requirements - logic and (as the flying pig scenario illustrates) truth
The only incoherency lies in the relationship between premises.
sure
the problem is however that the paradigm you are offering as the "efficient eliminator" of mine is an ocean of need (without any shores) when it begins to address the issue of consciousness/life.
SO either put up or shut up.
sorry
science fiction novels don't count as evidence
No
about how in some areas a 5 year old has recourse to more reliable skills than yourself
hehe
"My gap is better than your gap" is a statement of belief.
I think I see now.
If we add an additional factor (like life is materially reducible) we have a means for disregarding the claim that life is not.
Its all making sense now.
If only you can understand that post dated rain cheques undermine the credibility of the scientific process
I don't see how if you stubbornly keep insisting on a post dated rain cheque that you could possibly succeed in the future.
Only in the sense that in the future a person will realize the futility of applying an empirical paradigm to something that lies outside it, and perhaps try something different.
er .... and collectively?
See my comment that followed.
Incorrect. No such purported 'connection' is required.
Again, incorrect.
Introducing the truth value element brings the question to that of Soundness.
This is true.
You do not see the rational difference between "we don't know yet" and "God did it"?
The only reason you see an "ocean of need" is due to you thinking it impossible, yet you are unable to demonstrate/prove this impossibility. You have nothing but your confidence.
You still fail to understand your position... the gap is the same for both. You choose to bridge yours with a "God" (or soul, or some other thing that is unprovable) whereas the rational people choose to actually see if the gap is bridgeable through proven means first.
You don't see at all. :shrug:
That life is materially reducible is NOT an additional factor.
For life to be materially reducible you need one factor... MATERIAL.
For life to be not materially reducible you need two factors... MATERIAL and this NON-MATERIAL thing.
Now then... which of these claims has the additional factor?
I'm assuming that at least your maths is up to the level of the 5-year olds you converse with?
How so? You have stated this several times now but you have failed to explain how.
Maybe in your eyes - but then you fail to understand the scientific process, or even what constitutes a more rational theory.
It's called being rational. You should try it.
Claiming "We don't know yet" is rational when there is no evidence and when it is not proven to be impossible.
You, on the other hand, would let science get barely beyond the ability to observe individual atoms at work when you shout "It must be impossible - therefore God did it!" or some such.
Please prove that it is impossible.
You have stated again, with confidence, that it lies outside - yet you can offer NOTHING in the way of proof of this.
In fact you will undoubtedly say that your claim lies outside of the need for proof blah blah blah.
Come back when you understand when something is rational or irrational, and when you understand the scientific process that you clearly abhor.
If you are on a special diet and you don't eat anything from Thursday evening until Saturday morning, and you are an average human who gets hungry after not having eaten anything for a day or more, then it actually follows from 'Today is Saturday' that 'therefore I am hungry'.
And we could also work in the brown shoes. For example, if you are on a diet only every other week, but you wear brown shoes only on those days when you are on a diet (because they are really nice and make it easier for you to bear the hunger), then the above argument is actually valid.
We reason with such inferences all the time, e.g. "The blinds are closed, therefore Mary has left the house" or "It is 5.50 PM, therefore it is time to go home". These things don't follow directly, but they do follow if we make the correct inferences.
Now, the question is, how do we know what the correct inference is - and we have to know that before we can say that a conclusion really doesn't follow from the premises.
I have, vaguely, heard once that in Indian logic, one of the premises has to be about the context of the other premises (in the above case, the information about being on a special diet). I think this is very interesting because it can clear up many problems we otherwise have with understanding whether something logically follows or not.
Last edited:
If only the theory of rationality wouldn't be among the hottest and most disputed philosophical topics ...
Then let's start with merely applying Occam's Razor and see where we go from there.If only the theory of rationality wouldn't be among the hottest and most disputed philosophical topics ...
And unfortunately some people seem to think that "lack of current ability" should be taken as "(demonstration of) impossibility". This is just bad logic.
If only the theory of rationality wouldn't be among the hottest and most disputed philosophical topics ...
If only the theory of irrationality weren't so widely followed.
Could you quote this article?
My understanding of the Roman Catholic viewpoint is that ensoulment (Is that a word?) begins at conception.
ie That a single human cell capable of forming a new human being, has a soul.
Perhaps the writer of the article misunderstood what the Pope was saying.
Last edited:
Occham's Razor according to whose values?
Bad logic? Have you ever tried applying for a job or a university course where you didn't fulfill the admission requirements, saying "Oh, I am not qualified now, but this doesn't mean I never will be"? Did they accept you anyway?
I don't remember anyone saying "lack of current ability should be taken as demonstration of impossibility".
However, if someone keeps saying "One day I will do it, one fine day I will do it", but years pass and the person still hasn't done it - then everyone gets tired of such a person sooner or later.
A promise, a prognosis, a goal is something to fulfill, something to live up to, not something to repeat over and over again while producing no results.
Unless you can prove the existence of something that is non-material, I would say everyones'.
You make a response about bad logic with a logical fallacy. How ironic.
Your argument is a red-herring - an irrelevancy.
Applications for jobs / courses require a demonstrable ability - i.e. a minimum existing standard of achievement.
Applications for jobs / courses also do not make the claim that one will never be qualified.
Thus your example has zero relevance to the discussion.
Then where does LG accept that current inability leads merely (and rationally) to "I don't know yet"? Unless of course he can demonstrate impossibility, rather than merely a current inability?
No, he offers - and believes as truth - instead a non-theory (i.e. untestable, unfalsifiable) - thus implying that the current inability is demonstration of impossibility.
Unless of course you accept he is being irrational?
Again, irrelevant to this discussion. Science and rationality does not work to people's desired timetables and is not bound by peoples' ability to wait for a result or not.
It is a poor scientist that gives up on a theory just because it is not yet testable.
You just don't get it, do you?
Science doesn't pander to promises or as something to live up to.
Science is the exploration of our working universe, expanding our understanding of it wherever it leads.
But you would have us ignore rational theories merely because we are not in a position to fully explore them, in favour of irrational ideas that are beyond testing - that are unfalsifiable?
In that case, it's an impossibility, because people have all sorts of values, many of them are mutually exclusive.
You must really hate your life, and the lives of others, don't you?
Apparently, you think life is worthless, or at least not worth much - so it's okay to squander it on theories, even theories that curently have produced no results ...
What is an impossibility? Proving the existence of something that is non-material? No disagreement there.
:shrug:
Yep, all scientists and those who investigate theories hate their lives and the lives of others, and think their life is worthless.
I think we're done here, Signal. You clearly have nothing of value to add.
I'm afraid it does in the case of syllogisms
If that's the case, The other day was saturday and I was wearing brown shoes therefore I was hungry is a sound argument (since they are all truthful statements)
and (as anyone who has ever come within 10ft of algebra can tell you) a problem of form (as opposed to a problem of content) is a problem of logic
Sure
Introduce different forms to an illogical argument and it can become logical
"correct inferences" = "added premises"
In short, inference draws from a knowledge base. So "correct" can be seen as relative to an individual and the society that shapes it. This of course is often used to suggest that god and any associated knowledge is relative (usually on the basis that god doesn't have an individuality or some society that is persistent .... IOW if you have a society and individual that is eternal and consistent, any relative knowledge bases also become eternal and consistent)
hence logic is pertinent to the values of the beholder.
For instance sex life appears completely illogical to a 6 year old ... add another ten years and you get a different story.